Note: This translation has been prepared by the Registry for internal purposes and has no official
character
12668
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
CASE CONCERNING THE REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION OF THE JUDGMENT OF
15 JUNE 1962 IN THE CASE CONCERNING THE TEMPLE OF PREAH VIHEAR
(CAMBODIA v. THAILAND) (CAMBODIA v. THAILAND)
RESPONSE OF THE KINGDOM OF CAMBODIA
VOLUME II (ANNEXES)
8 MARCH 2012
[Translation by the Registry]
LIST OF ANNEXES
(Volume 2)
Annex 1: AKP press release of 18 June 1962, “Press conference by the Thai Prime Minister”.
Annex 2: AKP press release of 19 June 1962, “Declaration by the Royal Government”.
Annex 3: AKP press release of 22 June 1962, “The US press and the case of Preah Vihear”.
Annex 4: Aide memoire on Khmero-Thai relations of 28 November 1962 published by the
Cambodian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Annex 5: AKP press release of 2 January 1963, “Declaration by the Royal Government”.
Annex 6: AKP press release of 6 January 1963, “Main points of speech given by
Prince Sihanouk, Cambodian Head of State, at Choam Ksan (Preah Vihear,
4 January 1963)”.
Annex 7: AKP press release of 7 January 1963, “The national pilgrimage to Preah Vihear”.
Annex 8: Speech by the Khmer delegation to the Sixth Committee of the United Nations,
published by AKP, 6 January 1964.
Annex 9: Telegram of 10 March 1964 from the US embassy in Phnom Penh to the State
Department, “Transmittal of Maps Showing Cambodian-claimed Boundaries”.
Annex 10: Account of Prince Sihanouk’s comments of 5 January 1965 on “Cambodia’s
relationship with Thailand”.
Annex 11: United Nations transcript of 3 May 1966 of “Letter dated 23 April 1966 from the
Minister for Foreign Affairs of Cambodia addressed to the President of the Security
Council”.
Annex 12: Letter of 23 April 1966 from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Cambodia to the
Secretary-General of the United Nations.
Annex 13: Letter of 11 April 1966 sent to the Secretary-General of the United Nations by the
Permanent Mission of Cambodia to the United Nations.
Annex 14: Letter of 27 May 1966 sent to the Secretary-General of the United Nations by the
Permanent Mission of Cambodia to the United Nations.
Annex 15: United Nations document of 10 October 1966, “pro memoria” on “The general
situation”.
Annex 16: Note of 26 October 1966 from the Cambodian Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the
Special Representative of the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
Annex 17: Account of Prince Sihanouk’s “Message to the nation” of 9 November 1966.
Annex 18: United Nations document of 2 March 1967, “Memorandum on the actual situation
with regard to the negotiations of the U.N. Mission to Cambodia and Thailand”.
Annex 19: Account of Prince Sihanouk’s press conference of 22 October 1967.
- 2 -
Annex 20: Account of Prince Sihanouk’s press conference of 31 July 1967, “Preah Vihear still
claimed by Thailand”.
Annex 21: Corrections made by Prince Sihanouk on 30 September 1967 “concerning
two articles, one in the American press and the other in Singapore’s pro-Peking press,
which have come together to impugn the neutrality of Cambodia and Sihanouk”.
Annex 22: AKP press release of 10 November 1967, “Cambodia’s current frontiers”.
Annex 23: Extract from Prince Sihanouk’s address of 21 February 1968, “At Russey, near Preah
Vihear Mountain”.
Annex 24: Decision by the Cambodian Ministry of Worship and Religion of 12 November 1998
concerning the opening of a new pagoda.
Annex 25: Agreed Minutes of the First Meeting of the Thai-Cambodian Joint Commission on
Demarcation for Land Boundary, 30 June-2 July 1999.
Annex 26: Terms of Reference and Master Plan for the Joint Survey and Demarcation of Land
Boundary between the Kingdom of Cambodia and the Kingdom of Thailand.
Annex 27: Aide memoire of 17 May 2007 sent by the Thai Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the
Cambodian Minister for Foreign Affairs and the World Heritage Committee.
Annex 28: Agreed Minutes of the First Discussion of the Cambodian-Thai Technical Officers,
29-30 September 2003.
Annex 29: Agreed Minutes of the Second Discussion of the Cambodian-Thai Technical Officers,
4-5 February 2004.
Annex 30: Agreed Minutes of the Third Discussion of the Cambodian-Thai Technical Officers,
30 June-2 July 2004.
Annex 31: “Joint communiqué” of 18 June 2008 signed by the Governments of Cambodia and
Thailand and UNESCO.
Annex 32: Decision of the 32nd session of the World Heritage Committee in 2008.
Annex 33: MCOT press release of 8 July 2008, “Thai Court rules Thai-Cambodian communiqué
in breach of charter”.
Annex 34: Letter of 19 July 2008 sent to the President of the United Nations General Assembly
by the Permanent Mission of Cambodia to the United Nations.
Annex 35: Letter of 18 July 2008 sent to the President of the United Nations Security Council by
the Permanent Mission of Cambodia to the United Nations.
Annex 36: Letter of 21 July 2008 sent to the President of the United Nations Security Council by
the Permanent Mission of Thailand to the United Nations.
Annex 37: Attestation by the Agent of the Kingdom of Cambodia.
___________
ANNEX 1
AKP press release of 18 June 1962, “Press conference
by the Thai Prime Minister”
ANNEX 1
AKP press release of 18 June 1962, “Press conference
by the Thai Prime Minister”
[Translation]
Phnom Penh (16/6)
Thailand’s position following the Judgment of the International Court of Justice in
The Hague is devoid of ambiguity. One need only read the bellicose declaration by Marshal Sarit,
which we publish below.
An AFP cable picked up yesterday is even more explicit. That same marshal has ordered the
considerably strengthened border patrols to fire immediately on Cambodians entering Thai
territory. His Ministers for Defence and Foreign Affairs have also reacted strongly to the Judgment
in The Hague.
Thus, the world can see that Thailand is not only refusing to comply with the Judgment of
the highest international court, but seeking to create out of nothing artificial tensions on our
frontier. The sound of boots and the clicking of weapons do not scare us, no more than they will
break the Khmer people’s solidarity with the throne and Samdech, Head of State, in the face of
adversity.
At 12.15 today, Marshal SARIT THANARAT, the Prime Minister, who had accompanied the
royal party inspecting the Thai military detachments and SEATO troops, gave an interview to the
press at the airfield in the province of CHHIENG MAI. On the question of the International Court of
Justice, which has recognized Cambodia’s sovereignty over the Temple of Preah Vihear, the Prime
Minister declared that Thailand had been outdone by Cambodia, which had used the geographical
map as evidence in support of its Application in order to claim sovereignty over the Temple. That
map had been drawn up in the year 2447. At that time, Thailand had been obliged to accept the
loss of a small part of its territory under pressure from a powerful force, that being preferable to
losing all of Thailand. And that is not something that nobody knows anything about. Thailand has
not yet had time to rectify that map, and this issue has flared up. Representatives of the press asked
him what instructions he had given as regards this matter, and the Prime Minister said:
“I had already ordered reinforcements for the police guarding Preah Vihear.
Thailand retains sovereignty over the Temple of Preah Vihear, the Prime Minister
confirmed. I had also ordered that a military company be ready to respond to any
violation of Thailand’s sovereignty.”
___________
ANNEX 2
AKP press release of 19 June 1962, “Declaration by the
Royal Government”
ANNEX 2
AKP press release of 19 June 1962, “Declaration by
the Royal Government”
[Translation]
NEWS RELATING TO CAMBODIA
Phnom Penh (AKP)
The Royal Cambodian Government notes with very considerable satisfaction the decision of
the International Court of Justice in The Hague in the case of the Temple of Preah Vihear, which
has been illegally occupied by Thailand since 1954. By confirming Cambodia’s sovereignty over
this sanctuary, the Court in The Hague, which is the subject of all of our admiration, has proven
that small peaceable nations are still able to have their rights recognized internationally.
It is, however, extremely regrettable that the Government in Bangkok has clearly shown its
intention to refuse to comply with its 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” in
accordance with the decision of the International Court of Justice. Indeed, Marshal Sarit Thanarat,
Prime Minister of Thailand, has declared that he has ordered military reinforcements for the
occupation of the Temple and given orders to fire immediately on Cambodians seeking to enter
territory that is under Thai occupation.
The Royal Cambodian Government notes that the Thai Government has deliberately violated
that decision by the highest international court, the impartiality of which is recognized by all
civilized nations. That disregard for international law is rendered all the more flagrant by the fact
that Thailand, in recognizing the Judgment of 26 May 1961, which dismissed the objection raised
on grounds of a lack of competence, pledged indisputably to accept the Court’s decision on the
merits of the case. It should be noted that, following the Court’s rejection of the objections raised
by Thailand on grounds of a lack of competence, the Thai Government had the option of refusing
to agree to the Order setting out the subsequent stages of the proceedings. And yet, Thailand’s
lawyers went ahead and presented, in their written and oral pleadings, all of the arguments that they
judged apt to ensure the success of the case made by Thailand — i.e., recognition of Thailand’s
rights over the Temple of Preah Vihear.
The Thai Government’s refusal to comply with the obligations stemming from the decision
by the Court in The Hague is an insult to international law and to all organizations that accept and
defend it. It therefore seems both immoral and abnormal for Thailand to be able to retain the right
to rely on those same laws and demand that they be respected whenever its own interests are at
stake. There are also grounds to express the clearest of reservations regarding the value of
Thailand’s signature on international treaties and agreements.
The Royal Cambodian Government addresses international opinion and takes the liberty, in
particular, of drawing the attention of the Governments of the United States, Great Britain and
Australia, whose armed forces are protecting Thailand’s territory, to the extremely serious
consequences of the attitude of the Government in Bangkok, whose willingness to use force in
order to satisfy its territorial ambitions has now been clearly confirmed. Cambodia would like to
make clear that it will never abandon its recognized rights over Preah Vihear and will use all the
means at its disposal to ensure that the decision of the International Court of Justice is respected.
- 2 -
DENIAL BY THE ROYAL CAMBODIAN GOVERNMENT
Phnom Penh (AKP)
The Royal Cambodian Government denies, in the most categorical of terms, Thailand’s
claims that Cambodia has deployed forces in the Klongluk canal region, on the frontier with
Thailand. The campaign of misinformation launched by the Government in Bangkok clearly aims
to blind international opinion to the very real threat that the Thai forces pose to Cambodia’s
frontiers.
Thailand is also known, despite the decision of the International Court of Justice in
The Hague, to be maintaining and reinforcing its military occupation of both an area of Cambodian
territory and the Temple of Preah Vihear.
___________
ANNEX 3
AKP press release of 22 June 1962, “The US press and
the case of Preah Vihear”
ANNEX 3
AKP press release of 22 June 1962, “The US press and
the case of Preah Vihear”
[Translation]
Phnom Penh (AKP)
The decision of the International Court of Justice restoring Cambodia’s rights over the
Temple of Preah Vihear was reported in detail by all of the American press on 16 June.
The newspaper “The New York Times” published a long article by its special correspondent
in The Hague saying that the International Court of Justice had decided, by nine votes to three, that
the Temple is situated in Cambodian territory, and that Thailand must withdraw its troops and
return the sculptures and other objects removed from the Temple.
The newspapers “The Washington Post” and “New York Herald Tribune” reported the same
news on the basis of the agency AP’s despatch.
According to the agency Reuters, reporting from Bangkok, Seni Pramoj said he was
surprised by the decision of the International Court of Justice, but added “winning or losing is a
normal part of life, but one should not lose one’s honour”.
Certainly, certainly, but Thailand, by refusing to respect the decision of the International
Court of Justice, is quite simply losing its honour. This is a simple question of good faith.
On Sunday 17 June, the newspaper “The Washington Post” published the agency AP’s
despatch from Bangkok, saying: “Sarit Thanarat declares that Thai police will fight any
Cambodian attempts to retake the Temple of Preah Vihear. The International Court of Justice ruled
yesterday that the Temple belongs to Cambodia. Sarit told journalists in Chhieng Mai that he had
ordered reinforcements for the region and would resist any Cambodian attempts to retake the
Temple. The Minister for Defence, General Thanom, also told journalists: ‘I will fight to keep
what is Thai.’”
While it is perfectly legitimate for Marshal Sarit to defend national property, it is odious to
annex foreign territory and then regard it as one’s own. Does the Thai marshal regard imperialism
as a normal kind of relationship between nations?
“In Phnom Penh”, the same newspaper reports, “people massed in front of the royal palace to
celebrate Cambodia’s victory before the International Court of Justice.”
The newspaper “Sunday Star” also published the AP despatch on 17 June, saying that “the
Thai Government, meeting in an emergency session to discuss the verdict of the International Court
of Justice awarding sovereignty over the Temple to Cambodia, has declared that Cambodia has,
since Friday, begun deploying troops in the region adjacent to the frontier on land well suited to
artillery emplacements”.
This is another lie thrown around by Bangkok to mask its concentration of armed forces on
the frontier with a view to preventing our country from retaking possession of the Temple of
Preah Vihear. Thailand’s manoeuvring is clear: the movement of Thai forces is justified by the
movement of Khmer forces. But our Royal Khmer Armed Forces have done no such thing.
This morning, the newspaper “The Washington Post” published the despatch from Bangkok
by the agency Reuters, saying:
- 2 -
“Thailand has closed its border with Cambodia as a recent measure, following
the International Court of Justice’s ruling on Friday that the Temple of Preah Vihear
belongs to Cambodia. The Minister for the Interior has told journalists that Thai
police have strengthened security all along the frontier.
It is being reported in Phnom Penh that Vietnamese soldiers entered Cambodian
territory on four occasions on Saturday and fought with provincial Cambodian troops.
Several Vietnamese soldiers were killed and 100 Vietnamese were captured.”
“THE TIMES” TAKES OUR SIDE IN THE CASE OF PREAH VIHEAR
London (AFP)
On Thursday morning, “The Times” invited the United Nations to address the consequences
of the dispute between Thailand and Cambodia regarding the “nationality” of the Temple of Preah
Vihear. “When soldiers begin digging trenches and ministers proclaim loudly that they are
prepared to defend their country right down to the last drop of blood, it is time for the international
guardians of peace to take note”, the independent paper wrote.
Recalling that the International Court of Justice in The Hague had decreed that the Temple
was situated in Cambodian territory, the newspaper asserts that the Thais “cannot even use the
argument that ceding the Temple to the Cambodians means Thai citizens falling under the
jurisdiction of the Cambodians, since the people living in the neighbouring villages are Khmer—
i.e., Cambodian”. The United Nations has already sent a mediator to the area once.
“It seems that the United Nations will have to intervene again if the Siamese
persist in rejecting the Judgment of the International Court of Justice. Already, the
fact that the Thai delegate has left the conference on Laos does not augur well, since
the agreement will need to be signed by Thailand.”
___________
ANNEX 4
Aide memoire on Khmero-Thai relations of 28 November 1962 published
by the Cambodian Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Annex 34
197
198
Annex 34
Annex 34
199
200
Annex 34
Annex 34
201
202
Annex 34
Annex 34
203
204
Annex 34
206
Annex 34
Annex 34
207
[Translation]
Thailand’s annexationist aims openly expressed
The Thai Government is today drawing the attention of the international community to its
desire for peace and its good intentions in respect of Cambodia. The accusations levelled against it
by the Khmer Government are, it claims, merely evidence of a persecution complex and even
complicity with those forces that are ideologically opposed to Thailand. Thailand’s approach in
this regard seeks essentially to gloss over certain chapters in its history and to alleviate certain
concerns.
Casual observers could consider, in good faith, that the Khmero-Thai disputes were caused
by Cambodia’s excessive sensitivity. That the worst insults by Thailand’s leaders and its press
were merely a sign of a poor education and something that simply reflected badly on the
individuals in question. That the incursions into Khmer territory by Thai soldiers and the
skirmishes with the Cambodian army, or even the repeated violations by Thai aircraft, were at most
minor incidents of the kind that occur in almost all frontier regions.
However, in order to understand fully the nature of the Khmero-Thai dispute, it is necessary
to appreciate not the facts themselves, but rather the spirit that governs them. For the Thai
Government, sending small groups of soldiers into Khmer territory is another step on the road to
the annexation of a number of Cambodian provinces. We saw with the case of Preah Vihear that
the official Thai view is that “facts (that is to say, force) speak louder than maps”. This striking
summary of Thailand’s annexationist policy explains and justifies Cambodia’s request for an
international guarantee of its neutrality and territorial integrity.
If any doubts had remained regarding Thailand’s annexationist aims, they would have been
dispelled by the statement made to the General Assembly on 2 October 1962 by
Mr. Somchai Anuman Rajadhon, Thailand’s representative at the United Nations:
“The Khmer delegate has accused Thailand of invading, in 1941, a number of
Cambodian provinces, which were then returned to Cambodia in 1946. This is a
‘ruse’ aimed at concealing the truth. In reality, history shows that the treaty of 1904
concluded by Thailand and Cambodia’s protecting power established the location of
the frontier as regards those provinces. However, Thailand was then, by means of the
treaty of 1907, forced to return those provinces to a colonial power. Those
two treaties clearly indicated Thailand’s territorial limits from antiquity right up to
1904, when it was not controlled by any other colonial power. It was in 1907 that
Thailand lost its sovereignty over those provinces. In 1941, as a result of the treaty of
Tokyo, those provinces were returned to Thailand. However, Thailand then lost its
sovereignty over those provinces again following the treaty of Washington of 1946.
This proves that it was Thailand that lost territory to a foreign power, not Cambodia.
It is Cambodia that is in the wrong, since it is exercising sovereignty over territory that
belongs to us.” (Broadcast by Radio Thailand on 10 October 1962.)
So, Thailand, which was allied with and protected by the Axis — particularly Japan—
during the Second World War, dares to reassert at the United Nations the legitimacy of its
annexation of territory at the expense of Cambodia, and thus also those at the expense of Laos,
Malaysia and Burma.
As regards the provinces annexed by Siam in 1941, it is necessary to emphasize that this is
Cambodian land, the population of which is 100 per cent Khmer (with the exception of very small
numbers of Chinese, who have been there for centuries), and nobody speaks Thai there. Thus,
Thailand, which occupied those provinces during the nineteenth century, is very officially asserting
its claim to part of Cambodia’s territory at the United Nations.
Finally, the fact that Thailand dares to challenge the Franco-Siamese Washington agreement
of 17 November 1946 by claiming that it “was forced to return those (Cambodian) provinces to a
colonial power (i.e., France)” is extremely serious. Indeed, both in 1907 and in 1946, France was
careful to stipulate that it was acting in its capacity as Cambodia’s protecting power and to
solemnly hand the returned territory over to His Majesty the King of Cambodia. (I)
This disdain for signed treaties and agreements, which is illustrated so perfectly by
Thailand’s official written statements and declarations, deserved to be highlighted, for the
edification of the international community.
Documents
(1) FRANCO-SIAMESE AGREEMENT signed on 17 November 1946 in WASHINGTON AND ANNEXED
DOCUMENTS— (FRENCH DOCUMENTATION — 23 November 1946— No. 465— diplomatic
document series —Paris)
REPORT BY THE FRANCO-SIAMESE CONCILIATION COMMISSION —Washington, 27 June 1947.
TERRITORY ANNEXED BY THAILAND
FROM 1941 TO 1946
Territorial violations
Aerial violations
Acts of piracy
Acts of espionage
Acts of provocation
Various infringements
[Excerpts from “Aide Memoire on Khmero-Thai relations”]
Thailand’s reactions
On June 16, at 12.15, Marshal Sarit Thanarat, the Thai Prime Minister gave a press interview
at Chhieng Mai airport. Answering a question about what instructions had been given over
Preah Vihear, the Thai Prime Minister said he had given orders for the police force guarding
Preah Vihear to be reinforced.
“Thailand has always retained sovereignty over the temple of Preah Vihear”, confirmed
Marshal Sarit Thanarat. “Moreover, I had given orders for an army company to be ready to meet
any violation of Thailand’s sovereignty.”
All Thailand’s highest officials, General Thanom Kittikachorn, Defence Minister, and
Mr. Thanat Khoman, Foreign Affairs Minister, condemned the Court’s verdict as “contrary to
usage and international justice”; stated they could “not see how The Hague’s decision could be
applied, since the temple, being in Thai territory, could not be reached from the Cambodian side”
(which is not true), and threatened “to shoot on sight any Cambodian who tried to enter Thai
territory (Preah Vihear)”. In Bangkok, the authorities organized great demonstrations in order to
oppose compliance with the Court’s decision.
On July 16, all the international press agencies in Bangkok announced that Thailand’s troops
had been withdrawn from Preah Vihear, but that the Thai flag, “which had flown over the temple
for more than fifty years” (Reuters), had not been lowered.
When finally and ostentatiously removing the Thai flag from the flagstaff “until the day
when it will fly again over the Temple”, Thailand openly maintained its claim to this part of
Cambodian territory.
On July 15, 1962, General Praphat Charusathien, Thai Interior Minister, went in person to
Preah Vihear to limit the temple zone with a line of barbed wire. It later appeared that this limit
was in complete disagreement with the Court’s decision, which confirmed the frontier as it
appeared on the 1907 map (see map in Appendix).
The attitude of the Thai authorities and their activities since the Court’s decision of June 15,
1962, such as the refusal to comply with the decision of this high legal authority, encroachments on
Cambodian territory, the laying of barbed wire along a line not in agreement with basic documents,
the setting of grenade traps in Cambodian territory near the Temple, and open threats, have only
served to confirm Thailand’s attitude towards Cambodia, which is “to consider that law must
follow the changing facts . . . facts dictated by force”.
We saw with the case of Preah Vihear that the official Thai view is that “facts (that is to say,
force) speak louder than maps”.
Statement made on October 2, 1962, by Mr. Somchai Anuman Rajadhon, Thailand’s
representative at the United Nations.
“It is Cambodia that is in the wrong, since it is exercising sovereignty over
territory that belongs to us.”
In this note the Thai Government clearly declares it will honour the obligations incumbent
upon it under the International Court’s decision, but will not recognize it and will reserve the right
to re-open the case as soon as possible. If one admits that the International Court of Justice is the
highest international Court of Appeal, and its decisions are final, Thailand’s aim “to recover” Preah
Vihear “by having recourse to any . . . legal process”, appears to be clearly lacking in common
sense. Nevertheless, we are led to consider the Bangkok Government’s “reservation” as a future
threat and a serious manifestation of contempt for existing treaties and international obligations.
The withdrawal of Thai forces from Preah Vihear therefore assumes a temporary character
for the Bangkok Government, which will take the first opportunity to re-occupy the temple and
prove that “facts speak louder than maps” . . . and louder than the Court’s verdict.
On July 16, all the international press agencies in Bangkok announced that Thailand’s troops
had been withdrawn from Preah Vihear, but that the Thai flag, “which had flown over the temple
for more than fifty years” (Reuters), had not been lowered.
By stating that the Thai flag flew over the Temple for over fifty years, the Bangkok
authorities did not hesitate grossly to distort the truth. As it has been confirmed in the text of the
Court’s verdict, the temple of Preah Vihear, “during the last fifty years”, was only occupied by
Thailand from 1941 to 1946, and from November 1953 to 1962.
When finally and ostentatiously removing the Thai flag from the flagstaff “until the day
when it will fly again over the Temple”, Thailand openly maintained its claim to this part of
Cambodian territory.
On July 15, 1962, General Praphat Charusathien, Thai Interior Minister, went in person to
Preah Vihear to limit the temple zone with a line of barbed wire. It later appeared that this limit
was in complete disagreement with the Court’s decision, which confirmed the frontier as it
appeared on the 1907 map (see map in Appendix).
___________
ANNEX 5
AKP press release of 2 January 1963, “Declaration by
the Royal Government”
ANNEX 5
AKP press release of 2 January 1963, “Declaration by
the Royal Government”
[Translation]
Phnom Penh (AKP)
In its programme at 12.30 on 29 December 1962, Radio Thailand broadcast the following
official information:
“General Praphat Charusathien, Minister for the Interior, has ordered the leaders
of all provinces adjacent to the Khmer frontier to be ready to respond to any incidents
caused by Cambodia during the New Year celebrations. The Minister announced that
Prince SIHANOUK, accompanied by a group of soldiers and monks, would undertake a
pilgrimage to the Temple of Preah Vihear. He ordered the border guards to be ready
to respond to any violation of our frontier, to follow their superiors’ orders to the
letter, to arrange for a permanent presence and to immediately report any incidents to
police management. The Minister concluded by saying: ‘The time has come for the
strict implementation of martial law in Thailand.’”
The Royal Cambodian Government believes that it should draw the international
community’s attention to these threatening measures, which are openly preparing the justification
for a major incident deliberately provoked by the Thai authorities themselves on the occasion of the
pilgrimage by Prince NORODOM SIHANOUK, Head of State, to the Khmer Temple of Preah Vihear.
The Royal Government calls, in particular, on the Secretary-General of the United Nations,
mediator in the Khmero-Thai dispute, reaffirming that the access route that will be used on
5 January by the Khmer Head of State and the pilgrims accompanying him is situated entirely in
Khmer territory. The diplomats and international observers participating in the visit to the Temple
will be impartial witnesses both as regards the respect shown for the Thai frontier by the unarmed
Khmer monks and laymen and as regards responsibility for any incidents of the kind foreseen by
Thailand’s leaders.
It should be noted, too, that such respect for the Thai frontier will extend to the network of
barbed wire unilaterally laid around the Temple by the Thai army and police with disdain for the
frontier imposed by the International Court of Justice. The Royal Government stresses, at this
point, that it reserves the right to bring this issue of the failure to comply with the Court’s decision
of 15 June 1962 before the United Nations in order to have the decision fully respected by the Thai
Government.
The Royal Government solemnly reiterates that any attempt by the Thai authorities to oppose
the national pilgrimage to Preah Vihear by force would have extremely serious consequences for
stability in this region of the world and for the preservation of peace.
___________
ANNEX 6
AKP press release of 6 January 1963, “Main points of speech given by
Prince Sihanouk, Cambodian Head of State, at Choam Ksan
(Preah Vihear, 4 January 1963)”
ANNEX 6
AKP press release of 6 January 1963, “Main points of speech given by
Prince Sihanouk, Cambodian Head of State, at Choam Ksan
(Preah Vihear, 4 January 1963)”
[Translation]
NEWS RELATING TO CAMBODIA
4 January 1963 will be a historic day for us Cambodians, since it will mark PREAH VIHEAR’s
de facto return to the motherland, some months after the ICJ, the equity of which cannot be praised
highly enough, ruled that it should return de jure.
Certain people abroad do not understand why the Khmer nation as a whole attaches such
great significance to PREAH VIHEAR.
They ask themselves if it is attributable to the significance of the Temple or its “exceptional
beauty”, or to some strategic significance attached to PREAH VIHEAR Mountain.
Many foreigners, keen to visit PREAH VIHEAR, doubtless go there in order to test such
theories.
And yet, the significance that we attach to the case of PREAH VIHEAR is quite different, and
very simple, very easy to understand.
It concerns a sacred principle: the indivisibility of a country’s territorial unity.
No country in the world would agree to surrender this principle.
Some are surprised, for example, that India and China would argue over an area of land that
is hardly inhabited and almost entirely uncultivated, despite being vast in size — which is not the
case with PREAH VIHEAR, which has a surface area of only a few square metres.
But what nation would sit there and say nothing as a foreign country, a neighbour, took even
a square millimetre of its territory? Land is to a country as flesh and blood is to a human being.
You also have to know about the history of Cambodia, which has, over the centuries,
systematically been stripped bare by its Siamese (i.e., Thai) and Annamite (i.e., Vietnamese)
neighbours, thereby reducing our national territory to its most basic form.
If we now give in again to their pressure, to their expansionism, we will be sentencing
ourselves to death, condemning our country to be wiped off the map and erased from the history of
the world.
For that reason, we will never back down again. Never again will we surrender a single
square millimetre of our national territory. Were such a situation to arise, we would use all means
necessary to safeguard our territorial integrity. Thus, as committed royalists and nationalists, we
informed the free world that if it continued to give our neighbours and their allies or satellites free
rein to exercise their expansionist policies in our regard, we would not hesitate to rally the socialist
camp, were that camp to agree to help ensure our territorial integrity. That needs to be understood,
since no nation would agree to die without first having recourse to all possible means of saving
itself.
- 2 -
The Thais have, after a great deal of prevarication and stalling tactics, finally evacuated
PREAH VIHEAR. Unfortunately, that has not prevented them from “making up for that loss” by
means of other expansionist activities: they have, to our detriment, established a new frontier line
in the immediate vicinity of PREAH VIHEAR. They have, in particular, erected barbed wire and set
up military and police posts which, in several places, encroach fairly significantly on our territory,
thereby flouting the Judgment of the ICJ.
That de facto encroachment can be explained only by Thailand’s desire to bully us for no
reason, simply for the pleasure of bullying a nation that those same Siamese have been used to
humiliating and mistreating since the fourteenth century. For the Thai people have nothing to gain
in terms of prestige, natural resources, population or strategic interests from nibbling away at land
in the PREAH VIHEAR and CHEOM KSAN region.
Consequently, we reserve the right to lodge a complaint with the United Nations regarding
this failure by Thailand to respect the Judgment of the ICJ, for if Thailand gives us back
PREAH VIHEAR, only to then take other areas of land, that does not resolve the issue of our
territorial integrity.
We will therefore continue with our efforts until such time as this is totally and absolutely
respected.
That said, we declare once again our ardent desire to normalize relations with our
neighbours.
However, that normalization, like friendship and mutual co-operation, presupposes
respect— not momentary or qualified respect, but inviolable respect — for the principles of
peaceful coexistence.
We pay tribute to the ICJ and the United Nations, who are guardians of justice, freedom and
peace, especially for small nations.
And we pay tribute to our lawyers, two of whom (Professors PINTO and REUTER) are here
with us today.
___________
ANNEX 7
AKP press release of 7 January 1963, “The national
pilgrimage to Preah Vihear”
ANNEX 7
AKP press release of 7 January 1963, “The national
pilgrimage to Preah Vihear”
[Translation]
NEWS RELATING TO CAMBODIA
THE NATIONAL PILGRIMAGE TO PREAH VIHEAR
Kompong Thom (AKP)
For the last two weeks, the Royal Khmer Armed Forces, public works and the kingdom’s
main technical services have been under considerable pressure preparing for Samdech’s visit to
Preah Vihear, which is now free following its occupation by Thailand. Indeed, it has been
necessary to construct an airfield accessible to a DC3, establish more than 150 km of tracks
between Kompong Thom and the foot of the Dangrek, improve the access route to the Temple,
prepare accommodation and supplies for several hundred people in Choam Ksan, set up refuelling
points and emergency stations all along the route, etc. It should be emphasized right away that
everyone agrees that the organization has been perfect, despite an influx of pilgrims that surpassed
all expectations.
The entire Royal Government arrived at Choam Ksan on 3 January. The Prince, the Head of
State, and his retinue, the diplomatic corps, the presidents of the three CIC delegations, the
journalists and the foreign correspondents all entered the small village on 4 January between
7 o’clock and [illegible]. As usual, the royal plane was equal to the task and did a better job of
keeping to its schedule than commercial airlines.
Choam Ksan was to see extraordinary amounts of activity on 3, 4 and 5 January. Roads
became one-way streets and acquired policemen to direct traffic. There was mandatory parking
with reserved parking spaces, areas set aside for helicopters, etc. The local population marvelled at
this aspect of urban life, while Khmer and foreign urbanites discovered the joy of country life.
In two weeks, a chalet for Samdech, another for the diplomats, an information hall, a new
co-operative, an official gallery, etc., have all been built. With good humour, everyone finds
shelter and a level of comfort that far exceeds what could reasonably be expected in one of the
most remote villages in the kingdom.
At 9.30, the Prince’s helicopter lands in front of the official gallery. Great cheers greet the
arrival of the Head of State, who delights in stopping to meet his many “children”, who are keen to
touch him and show their devotion and deep affection for him. After reviewing the troops,
Samdech greets the college of monks, headed by their eminences the heads of the Mohanikay and
Thommayut orders, who, despite their great age, have defied [. . .]
[. . .] all of their fatigue in order to be present on these historic days. Following a military
parade, a JSFK detachment sings the national anthem. Then, Sahachivin YIM DITH, a choral music
enthusiast, launches his Yuvans into two long new compositions.
The governor of the province gives a welcoming address, and then finally Samdech says a
few words explaining the significance of the return of Preah Vihear. Peppering his speech (a
summary of which follows) with sentences in French for the benefit of our foreign friends, he
stresses the importance of Cambodia’s victory in the case of Preah Vihear from the perspective of
- 2 -
the confirmation of the kingdom’s territorial integrity. The official part of the day ends with the
inauguration of first the co-operative shop and then the information hall.
The diplomats, the two French lawyers who had defended Cambodia and the journalists are
somewhat surprised to find a sumptuous lunch organized by SOKHAR, led by the smiling
ANG KIM KHOAN, who works wonders organizing receptions in all four corners of the kingdom.
That evening, Samdech attends the monks’ prayers, followed by a beautiful firework display,
which delights the crowd and must have concerned the Thais, who are, in all likelihood, positioned
on the Dangrek ridge around 15 km away. The evening ends with games of first football and then
volleyball between the team from the royal palace and the military team.
We are told that around 250 cars arrive that evening from Phnom Penh— mostly Jeeps and
Land Rovers, but also some 2CVs, a Mercedes, a Volkswagen, an Opel and even an MG sports car.
Around 60 vehicles are apparently scattered, broken down, between Kompong Thom and
Choam Ksan.
At around 3 a.m. on 5 January, cars begin leaving for Preah Vihear, around 40 km to the
west. The track is bumpy and dusty and it takes two hours to reach the foot of the mountain.
A triumphal arch made of foliage marks the beginning of the steps leading up to the Temple.
Hundreds of years of history, together with landslides, have taken their toll on the Angkorian steps.
But from what remains, you can imagine the scale of this staircase, which allowed, first and
foremost, the construction of a temple located on the edge of a cliff 450 metres above the plain.
The descendants of the extraordinary Khmer builders of the past have now rediscovered that
pilgrimage route and it is moving to see those hundreds of people of all ages, from all walks of life,
undertaking that ascent. The climb is tough, very tough, despite the work done by the soldiers of
the Royal Khmer Armed Forces: handrails and wooden steps on the hardest sections, resting places
and rustic benches.
The diversity of the crowd climbing up towards the Temple is astonishing. Old people,
women carrying children, monks — an entire nation has embarked on this pilgrimage. Nobody
will stop at the foot of the mountain. Here is a very old peasant who has been hauling himself up,
step by step, for hours, here is a 75-year-old monk supported by two novices, and here, even, is an
invalid. The young will take an hour to reach the summit, and the old will need four or even
five hours of toil to get there.
Samdech and his retinue, together with members of the Royal Government and diplomats,
begin the climb at 8 a.m. For some it will be a real ordeal, and the Yuvans very kindly provide
them with valuable assistance.
Around 15 metres to the east of the steps, running out onto the plateau, the Thais have
established “their” frontier, which is denoted by a line of barbed wire and signalled by a sign in
Khmer and French indicating that the vicinity of the Temple ends at that point. Several Thai
soldiers are there — peaceable, in no way hostile, with some smiling, and clearly very bored of
being there. Some are Khmer, coming from the Komat plateau. Sometimes they talk amicably in
Khmer with the soldiers from the Royal Khmer Armed Forces opposite them. This shows the
extent to which the hostile campaign by the leaders in Bangkok is artificial and poorly supported.
The pink sandstone Temple is very beautiful and represents admirable use of the site by the
Angkorian architects. An initial inventory shows that nothing major has been removed and no
damage has been caused by the Thais.
- 3 -
Shortly after his arrival, Samdech attends prayers with the college of 30 monks, led by the
heads of the two orders, who have had to use a palanquin in order to reach the summit. The Prince
then speaks with diplomats and solemnly repeats Cambodia’s offer to allow all Thai tourists and
pilgrims access to Preah Vihear, with no need for a passport or a visa, in complete freedom and
without any police checks.
At midday, the Khmer flag is solemnly raised above the Temple, while a detachment of the
Royal Khmer Armed Forces presents arms. Samdech is clearly very moved, and that sentiment is
shared by all those present. The Yuvans sing the national anthem. At the end of that short
ceremony, the diplomatic corps asks that souvenir photos be taken of the Prince in front of the
Temple.
A further religious ceremony then takes place in the central sanctuary, followed by a walk
around the whole of the Temple. After a picnic, it is time to return to Cheom Ksan. Samdech,
elderly dignitaries and the diplomatic corps leave Preah Vihear in the helicopters of the Royal
Khmer Air Force, which land on a narrow platform cut into the cliff. At Phum Russey, light
aircraft fly backwards and forwards between the foot of the mountain and the airfield at
Cheom Ksan.
The official ceremonies have ended, but the pilgrims continue to flood towards the Temple,
with buses coming from all provinces, stopping regularly along the way en route to Preah Vihear,
symbol of a glorious past, but also of confidence in the future.
SPORTING CONTESTS AT CHEOM KSAN
Kompong Thom (AKP)
On the afternoon of 4 January, a friendly football match took place on the Cheom Ksan
sports ground between the royal palace’s “A” team and that of the Royal Khmer Armed Forces in
the presence of all the civil and military dignitaries, both domestic and foreign, who had come for
the ceremonies at Preah Vihear, as well as the local population.
“I did not,” His Royal Highness told his vast audience, “want today’s match to be an official
match as part of the state authorities championship. It will just be a friendly. A match counting
towards the championship could be too keenly contested, resulting in the players no longer having
enough strength in their legs for the ascent of Preah Vihear Mountain tomorrow.”
The spectators laughed at this witty clarification.
Although, as was evident throughout the game, the royal palace’s formidable team largely
heeded those instructions issued by its illustrious captain, the same could not be said of our
esteemed officers, who defended with great energy.
Major General NGO HOU, the military team’s left back, proved to be his team’s defensive
rock, repelling numerous dangerous attacks by the usual irresistible forwards in the Prince’s team.
The military team put up extremely physical resistance throughout the first half, and the palace
team scored only two goals in the first half, with the military team scoring [illegible] goals (of
course).
___________
ANNEX 8
Speech by the Khmer delegation to the Sixth Committee of the United Nations,
published by AKP, 6 January 1964
ANNEX 8
Speech by the Khmer delegation to the Sixth Committee of the United Nations,
published by AKP, 6 January 1964
[Translation]
Delegate: Mr. Chhim Khei
Mr. Chairman,
Since this is the first time that my delegation has had the floor, it would like to congratulate
you most warmly on being elected unanimously as head of our Committee.
Since my delegation is one of the last to speak on the subject of the first agenda item, my
delegation appreciates your considerable competence, which will allow our Committee to conclude
its work in a satisfactory manner.
My delegation also warmly congratulates the other eminent dignitaries from the Office,
namely our distinguished Deputy Chairman and Rapporteur, on also being elected unanimously to
those important positions, which they fully merit.
Mr. Chairman,
If the Cambodian delegation did not wish to participate in the debate on the first item on our
committee’s agenda, it was because it considers that the report submitted to us by the International
Law Commission poses no particular problems in its regard. It was because that report appears,
overall, to be acceptable, albeit the Royal Cambodian Government reserves the right, of course, to
present definitive observations at a later date.
In particular, my delegation fully approves of the wording of the draft Article 34 relating to
the problem posed by the concept of error in international law, both as regards the principle
established and as regards the exceptions provided for, as well as the accompanying commentaries,
particularly paragraphs 4 and 5 concerning the case of the Temple.
The Cambodian delegation would like to take this opportunity to ask the Chairman to convey
to the eminent jurists of the International Law Commission its sincere congratulations and gratitude
for providing our committee with an excellent working document which is of great value.
In addition, Mr. Chairman, still on the subject of the above-mentioned Article 34, the
Cambodian delegation would like to make a small correction to the observations made by
Thailand’s distinguished delegate regarding that Article. If I understand correctly, Thailand’s
distinguished delegate appears to criticize the validity of the decision of the International Court of
Justice in the case between Thailand and Cambodia concerning the Temple.
The Cambodian delegation expresses its regret at having to make this small intervention,
which it considers eminently opportune. Indeed, as you know, this is a matter of respect for the
standards of international law and the decisions of the highest international court of all.
The Cambodian delegation had no desire to revisit an issue that has already been ruled on
definitively by the International Court of Justice, which could discredit it in the eyes of the Member
States, even though we, as members of the Sixth Committee, are working to strengthen the
authority of the Court in seeking to augment and progressively develop the rules of international
law, which have the potential to make a real contribution to peace.
- 2 -
It was in that spirit that Cambodia, having elected to bring the case of the Temple before the
International Court of Justice, declared on a number of occasions through its Government and its
Head of State that it would firmly respect the Court’s decision, whatever that decision was.
My delegation does not consider it appropriate to repeat here the arguments used by
Cambodia and the principal points of law that led the Members of the Court to rule in its favour,
since that would go beyond our remit.
The Cambodian delegation simply asks that the distinguished delegates present here today
refer to the useful arguments employed by the Court, which are sufficiently clear and convincing
and in no way invite criticism.
We therefore insist on reaffirming our profound faith in the various bodies that make up our
organization, particularly the International Court of Justice.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
___________
ANNEX 9
Telegram of 10 March 1964 from the US embassy in Phnom Penh to the State Department,
“Transmittal of Maps Showing Cambodian-claimed Boundaries”
ANNEX 10
Account of Prince Sihanouk’s comments of 5 January 1965 on
“Cambodia’s relationship with Thailand”
ANNEX 10
Account of Prince Sihanouk’s comments of 5 January 1965 on
“Cambodia’s relationship with Thailand”
[Translation]
In an improvised address, Prince NORODOM SIHANOUK, Head of State, talked about relations
between Cambodia and Thailand following the recent incident on the night of 27/28 December,
which saw a clash between a Cambodian provincial guard patrol and a Thai fishing vessel in
Cambodian territorial waters off Koh Kong. That skirmish resulted in one of the Cambodian
guards being wounded and one of the Thais being killed. Once again, the Prince praised the
Judgment of the International Court of Justice in The Hague, which had ordered that Preah Vihear
be returned to Cambodia, and the mission led by Mr. Nils Gussing, lamenting the fact that his
departure had resulted in a fresh outbreak of acts of aggression on its frontiers and acts of piracy, as
well as support for the “Free Khmer”.
Prince NORODOM SIHANOUK noted once again that, following the verdict in The Hague,
Thailand was continuing to refuse to recognize the current frontier, despite the fact that the sole
condition imposed by Cambodia for the re-establishment of normal relations was recognition of
Cambodia’s territorial integrity. Consequently, the Head of State issued a warning: “We cherish
our peace, which has been achieved at considerable expense. It is of great importance for our
nation-building and the improvement of our standard of living. However, we will never
compromise on the issue of our territorial integrity. The Khmer people, right down to the last man,
would rather die than see Thailand or South Vietnam take even the smallest amount of its glorious
ancestors’ land.”
___________
ANNEX 11
United Nations transcript of 3 May 1966 of “Letter dated 23 April 1966 from
the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Cambodia addressed to
the President of the Security Council”
Annex 65
397
398
Annex 65
Annex 65
399
ANNEX 12
Letter of 23 April 1966 from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Cambodia
to the Secretary-General of the United Nations
ANNEX 12
Letter of 23 April 1966 from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Cambodia
to the Secretary-General of the United Nations
[Translation]
PHNOM PENH, 23 APRIL 1966
Dear Mr. Secretary-General,
I would like to take the liberty of drawing Your Excellency’s attention, as someone who
devotes all his energies to re-establishing peace in south-east Asia, to the latest developments in the
situation on the frontier between Cambodia and Thailand. Indeed, that situation is becoming more
fraught with every passing day, creating an extremely serious risk of an armed conflict, the
consequences of which would be impossible to predict.
As Cambodia’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations had the honour of informing
Your Excellency, Thailand’s armed forces are carrying out almost daily attacks on Cambodian
border posts at O’Smach (Oddor Meanchey province) and Chhné Khsach (Koh Kong province),
using its army, navy and air force. In parallel, small groups of Thai soldiers are infiltrating Khmer
territory and laying mines along our transport routes.
Finally, on 3 April a Thai military unit attacked and set light to the Cambodian post guarding
the Temple of Preah Vihear. Five men stationed at that post were taken prisoner and had their
throats slit soon after. On 6 April our forces succeeded in taking back that land and the Temple,
which had been occupied by the Thais.
That last act of aggression, which follows a great many others, represents real provocation,
given that the Temple of Preah Vihear was the subject of a Judgment by the International Court of
Justice on 15 June 1962 confirming Cambodia’s sovereignty over this ancient Angkorian site and
the surrounding land. By acting in this manner, the Government in Bangkok has clearly shown its
refusal to comply with international law, the Charter of the United Nations and the decisions of the
highest court competent to hear disputes between countries. It is already the case that it was not
until some time after the Court’s decision to return the Temple of Preah Vihear to Cambodia that,
as Prince NORODOM SIHANOUK, Head of State, declared, “[t]he Thais [. . .], after a great deal of
prevarication and stalling tactics, finally evacuated Preah Vihear. Unfortunately, that has not
prevented them from ‘making up for that loss’ by means of other expansionist activities: they
have, to our detriment, established a new frontier line in the immediate vicinity of Preah Vihear.
They have, in particular, erected barbed wire and set up military and police posts which, in several
places, encroach fairly significantly on our territory, thereby flouting the Judgment of the ICJ.”
In the face of these repeated violations challenging the authority and the very basis of the
United Nations, the Royal Government requests that the United Nations, of which both Cambodia
and Thailand are members, give this matter all the attention that it deserves and take all the
necessary measures.
- 2 -
Moreover, Article 94 (2) of the Charter clearly stipulates:
“If any party to a case fails to perform the obligations incumbent upon it under a
judgment rendered by the Court, the other party may have recourse to the Security
Council, which may, if it deems necessary, make recommendations or decide upon
measures to be taken to give effect to the judgment.”
(Signed) NORODOM KANTOL,
President of the Council of Ministers and
Minister for Foreign Affairs in the
Royal Cambodian Government.
___________
ANNEX 13
Letter of 11 April 1966 sent to the Secretary-General of the United Nations
by the Permanent Mission of Cambodia to the United Nations
378
Annex 62
Annex 62
379
ANNEX 14
Letter of 27 May 1966 sent to the Secretary-General of the United Nations by
the Permanent Mission of Cambodia to the United Nations
ANNEX 14
Letter of 27 May 1966 sent to the Secretary-General of the United Nations
by the Permanent Mission of Cambodia to the United Nations
[Translation]
New York, 27 May 1966
Dear Excellency,
I have the honour to refer to letter no. 335/2509, dated 22 April 1966, from Thailand’s acting
Permanent Representative and, on the instructions of my Government, to confirm the terms of my
two letters to Your Excellency dated 11 April 1966 regarding the Thai armed forces’ criminal
attack on the Cambodian post guarding the Temple of Preah Vihear on 3 April 1966.
Having sent its soldiers to commit that criminal act of aggression, the Thai Government,
through its acting Permanent Representative to the United Nations, is seeking to deceive the
Member States by claiming, as usual, to know nothing and daring to assert that this criminal attack
“must have been an entirely internal disturbance”. With this mendacious declaration, the Thai
Government is once again— in line with its standard approach— seeking in a cowardly manner
(and, what is more, in vain) to evade its responsibilities and appears to want to blame a group of
traitors whom the American, South Vietnamese and Thai authorities have supported, equipped and
installed both in Thai territory and in South Vietnamese territory with the aim of showing the
international community the supposed existence of opposition to our Government. Those
mercenaries are, in reality, merely back-up for the regular Thai army and American/South
Vietnamese special forces. Thailand’s theory that this handful of traitors carried out that criminal
act of aggression does not stand up to any serious examination. Indeed, the limited size of the area
of land containing the Temple (250 m long and 200 m wide), which is surrounded by barbed wire
erected by the Thais, the presence, close to the Temple, of a Thai post manned by a strong unit, the
narrowness of the access route, that long staircase with more than 1,000 steps, and the impassable
cliffs bordering Preah Vihear on the Khmer side prove the mendacious nature of Thailand’s
assertion.
As I informed Your Excellency in my letters of 17 and 24 May 1966, since the Temple of
Preah Vihear was reoccupied by our forces, the Thais have repeatedly reinforced their troops, fired
on us on an almost daily basis and carried out armed attacks on our positions, with such attacks
being warlike in scale.
In his letter, the Thai representative twisted the wording of my letter of 11 April 1966 by
having us say “that the Thai Government refused to recognize that judgment of the International
Court”.
I wrote, in the letter in question, that “Thailand, a member of the Organization [. . .] after
accepting the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice refuses to recognize its decision in
the case of Preah Vihear”. I stand by those words, which are, moreover, corroborated by the Thai
representative himself where he writes:
“In an official communiqué dated July 3, 1962, His Majesty’s Government
made a public announcement, expressing its disagreement with the above mentioned
decision of the Court on the ground that, in its opinion, the decision goes against the
- 2 -
express terms of relevant provisions of the 1904 and 1907 Treaties and is contrary to
the principles of law and justice, but stating nonetheless that, as a member of the
United Nations, His Majesty’s Government will honour the obligations incumbent
upon it under the said decision in fulfilment of its undertaking under Article 94 of the
Charter.
I wish to inform you that, in deciding to comply with the decision of the
International Court of Justice in the case concerning the Temple of Prah Viharn,
His Majesty’s Government desires to make an express reservation regarding whatever
rights Thailand has, or may have in future, to recover the Temple of Phra Viharn by
having recourse to any existing or subsequently applicable legal process, and to
register a protest against the decision of the International Court of Justice awarding the
Temple of Phra Viharn to Cambodia.”
This position demonstrates the duplicity of the Thai Government, which accepted the Court’s
jurisdiction with the intention of recognizing its decision only if it was favourable to Thailand.
As usual, Thailand is seeking to deceive international opinion by depicting Cambodia as
being responsible for these supposed acts of provocation in the Preah Vihear region.
In reality, this is what happened between 9 and 14 April 1966:
On 9 April 1966, at around 10.30, two American/Thai Skyraiders flew over our position at the
Temple of Preah Vihear a number of times over a period of around 15 minutes. Our defensive
units opened fire on those aircraft, thereby forcing them to return immediately to Thai airspace.
At the same time, the Thai troops positioned opposite ours fired on our position for an
extended period of time.
Our units responded. No losses were sustained on our side.
On 9 April 1966, one of our helicopters, having landed at 17.00 on Preah Vihear Mountain, in
our territory, was fired on by the Thai armed forces positioned opposite our defensive units
using heavy artillery. Several shells landed around 50 m from our helicopter.
No damage was reported.
The incidents on the 11, 12 and 14 April 1966 were recounted in the letter that His Highness
the Cambodian Minister for Foreign Affairs addressed to Your Excellency on 23 April 1966.
I take this opportunity to emphasize that Cambodia does not direct aggression at anyone. It
simply protects its independence and territorial integrity. That remains the single and constant
concern of the Royal Government and the Khmer people.
I would be grateful if you could communicate the text of this letter to all Member States of
the United Nations.
(Signed) Huot SAMBATH,
Permanent Representative of Cambodia.
___________
ANNEX 15
United Nations document of 10 October 1966, “pro memoria”
on “The general situation”
ANNEX 15
United Nations document of 10 October 1966,
“pro memoria” on “The general situation”
[Translation]
Secret
PRO MEMORIA
THE GENERAL SITUATION
1. Following lengthy confidential talks with the leaders of Cambodia and Thailand, the
Special Representative of the Secretary-General of the United Nations is pleased to note that the
two Parties have a serious desire to re-establish diplomatic relations between their countries.
2. Although differences of opinion remain regarding the relevant modalities, he believes that
he has, in the course of those talks, detected some rapprochement in their points of view, which
could make it possible to draw up a joint declaration acceptable to both Parties.
3. The Secretary-General of the United Nations, who has been informed of the tenor of those
talks, shares the view that the two Parties, acting with the utmost candour and demonstrating their
good faith, should be capable of agreeing such wording.
4. However, the Special Representative does not deny that the differences of opinion that
divide the two Parties constitute real problems, which he will endeavour to resolve in a satisfactory
manner.
THE POSITIONS OF THE TWO PARTIES
5. The positions of the two Parties could be summarized as follows. For Cambodia, the main
point of the declaration would be to guarantee its country’s independence and territorial integrity
“within the current common frontiers”.
6. For Thailand, on the other hand, the main point would be the re-establishment of
diplomatic relations without prior conditions.
7. However, during his negotiations with Thailand’s leaders, the Special Representative
thought he detected a definite rapprochement with the Cambodian position.
8. It should be noted that Thailand is prepared to reaffirm its agreement with the
Franco-Siamese treaties of 1904 and 1907 regarding common frontiers.
- 2 -
9. However, Thailand, for political, legal and psychological reasons, considers that its
reservation of rights regarding the Temple of Preah Vihear by means of the letter of 6 July 1962 to
the acting Secretary-General of the United Nations constitutes an additional element in the
Judgment of the International Court of Justice, given the link between Article 94 (1) of the Charter
and Article 61 (3) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice. In other words, Thailand
considers that it has given effect to the Court’s Judgment under Article 94 by virtue of the
provisions of Article 61 of the Statute of the Court.
10. In the course of his conversations with the Thai authorities, the Special Representative
noted that those authorities were not insisting on the inclusion of that reservation of rights
expressis verbis, but would not, however, agree to surrender the inherent legal rights that they have
under Article 61 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, which forms an integral part of
the Charter.
11. In order to establish the scope of Article 61, the Special Representative has analysed its
content and substance.
12. It should be noted, first of all, that the revision provided for in paragraph 1 is of a purely
legal nature, and that a revision by anything other than legal means would make it highly unlikely
for Article 61 to be applied under paragraph 3 of that Article.
13. Moreover, although the Article seeks to preserve the rights of the losing party, it makes
sure that it carefully protects the interests of the winning party by means of strict substantive and
(by means of a time bar) temporal limitations governing any application to have it applied.
14. It is not surprising, given the meticulous care taken by the Court when issuing its
judgments, that in its 20-year existence, no losing party has ever had cause to apply for a revision
on the basis of Article 61.
15. Needless to say, the fact that a particular article of the Charter has not been applied in no
way affects the rights of the Member States of the United Nations.
16. On the other hand, there is no reason to suppose that a Member State would seek to bring
the same proceedings again with the sole aim of prolonging the dispute, at the risk of losing again
and “losing face” in the eyes of the international community.
17. Consequently, it would seem to the Special Representative that the provisions of
Article 61, on which one of the Parties is relying, are not capable of seriously affecting the interests
of the other Party.
18. This would be made all the more acceptable by the fact that Thailand would not formally
insist on the inclusion of its “reservation”. Moreover, the Thai Government has assured the Special
Representative that it intends to use only peaceful means to resolve problems between the
two countries.
- 3 -
19. It would therefore be a good idea to weigh up the advantages and disadvantages
presumed to be inherent in compromise wording. It clearly falls to the two Parties, not the Special
Representative, to decide on the precise terms of any wording to which they could agree.
20. The Special Representative has taken the liberty of indicating to the Thai Government
what, in his view, would be the main elements of such a declaration, and he now proposes to do the
same with the Cambodian Government.
21. Firstly, he proposed that the two Parties base the declaration on the provisions of the
Charter, particularly those set out in Chapter I, Purposes and Principles of the United Nations, and
more specifically those concerning the issue of territorial integrity (Article 2 (4)).
22. Secondly, he proposed that, on the basis of the same chapter, they reaffirm the validity of
the Franco-Siamese treaties of 1904 and 1907, doing so implicitly, rather than explicitly.
23. As regards the issue of the Temple of Preah Vihear, it should be noted that the Judgment
of the International Court of Justice does not alter the provisions of those treaties and that the
current frontiers are consistent with those foreseen in those treaties.
24. As for Thailand’s “reservation”, given that this relates to the provisions of the Charter, it
would not be necessary to mention it, since the declaration would be based on the Charter as a
whole. Moreover, neither the Judgment of the International Court of Justice nor Thailand’s
“reservation” alters the legal and factual situation, so it does not appear necessary per se to mention
them.
25. The Thai Government was willing to take account of the guiding principles put forward
by the Special Representative and provided him with the following text, which the Thai
Government proposes as a joint declaration:
“Thailand and Cambodia agree to renew their traditional friendship and, to that
end, to re-establish diplomatic relations between the two countries on the basis of
equity, mutual respect and benefit, understanding, co-operation and good
neighbourliness in accordance with the purposes and principles of the United
Nations.”
26. The Thai Government said it was convinced that the wording it proposed not only
covered the proposal made by Cambodia, but also encompassed many other essential principles,
such as the obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity of the
other country, while avoiding other controversial issues.
27. The Special Representative would be grateful if the Royal Cambodian Government could
kindly give due consideration to the general tenor of the observations that he takes the liberty of
submitting, the principles set out in this note and the Thai proposal cited in paragraph 25 so as to
continue the dialogue that has begun.
- 4 -
28. Given the good faith that he has had the pleasure of encountering on both sides, the
Special Representative is convinced that, if not a definitive solution, then at least encouraging
progress can be achieved at the current stage of talks.
Phnom Penh, 10 October 1966.
Herbert DE RIBBING.
___________
ANNEX 16
Note of 26 October 1966 from the Cambodian Ministry of Foreign Affairs to
the Special Representative of the Secretary-General
of the United Nations
ANNEX 16
Note of 26 October 1966 from the Cambodian Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the
Special Representative of the Secretary-General of the United Nations
[Translation]
No. 210/DGP/AM/T/X
Very urgent; confidential
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Royal Cambodian Government presents its
compliments to the Special Representative of the Secretary-General of the United Nations in
Cambodia and Thailand and, following his aide memoire dated 10 October 1966, has the honour to
inform him of the following:
1. The Royal Government attaches no importance to compensation for damage caused by
incidents occurring on the Khmero-Thai frontier.
2. The Royal Government is opposed to the revision of the current frontiers, but agrees to the
placement of markers in locations considered indispensable on the basis of the frontiers established
by the treaties in force.
3. The Royal Government agrees to negotiations at the level of the Head of Government, in
the event that such negotiations were to take place between Cambodia and Thailand.
4. According to the Judgment of the International Court of Justice of 15 June 1962, the
Temple of Preah Vihear and its vicinity are situated in territory under the sovereignty of Cambodia.
5. The re-establishment of relations between the two countries will never be possible unless
the Thai Government declares that it respects the current common frontiers.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs takes this opportunity to renew to the Special Representative
of the Secretary-General of the United Nations the assurance of its highest consideration.
Phnom Penh, 26 October 1966.
___________
ANNEX 17
Account of Prince Sihanouk’s “Message to the nation”
of 9 November 1966
ANNEX 17
Account of Prince Sihanouk’s “Message to the nation” of
9 November 1966
[Translation]
Phnom Penh, 9 November 1966
Dear compatriots,
On 9 November 1953, eight months before the Geneva Conference of 1954 on Indochina,
our beloved country Cambodia gained full sovereignty.
Indeed, it was on 9 November 1953 that the French Command and the troops of the French
Union, who were occupying the kingdom on the pretext of defending it, left our national territory,
after General de Langlade had handed over to the King all command prerogatives for the whole of
our territory.
9 November 1953 was also the day that the Royal Government began the exclusive exercise
of all of its prerogatives in matters of police, justice and diplomacy in accordance with the
agreements and exchanges of letters concluded and signed several weeks earlier by the Khmer and
French plenipotentiaries Sahachivin Penn Nouth and Mr. Risterucci.
Finally, 9 November 1953 was also the day that Cambodia stopped participating in the work
of the High Council of the French Union, thereby leaving the French Union and asserting its new
status as an independent sovereign State.
Cambodia’s enemies, and even some of its “friends”, have still not forgiven it for its national
pride and its steadfast refusal to join one or other of the two ideologically opposed camps. What is
more, both camps seek desperately to give credit for our gaining full independence to the Geneva
Conference of 1954, and even to the Khmer Vietminh, whom some equate to the Khmer people as
a whole.
On 9 November in previous years, I have shown, with the aid of irrefutable proof, the
scandalous dishonesty and falseness of such a theory. I will not, therefore, revisit the issue today. I
will merely content myself with asking our eternal detractors a few specific questions, strongly
doubting that they will succeed in responding without completely ruining their tendentious and
ever so flimsy theory. Were they to succeed, however, the 99 per cent of Khmers who worked
together to secure that independence would promise not to celebrate our national day on
9 November and, instead, move the celebrations to 20 July, the date of the signing of the Geneva
Accords of 1954.
Here, then, are my questions:
If the Khmer Vietminh really were responsible for Cambodia’s independence, why did the
Geneva Conference not grant them a part or sector of Cambodia in which to station their troops
and exercise governmental or administrative authority, as it did with the Vietminh in Vietnam
and the Pathet Lao in Laos?
The Vietminh were granted part of Vietnam, which has become the “Democratic Republic of
Vietnam”, with the right to govern that area of Vietnamese territory and have an army there.
- 2 -
[illegible] have friendly relations with all powers, without [illegible], who agree to respect
that independence within the limits of the current frontiers of our Kampuchea. Indeed,
independence is pointless without territorial integrity, and territorial integrity means nothing
without precise frontiers.
If ever there was a country that had territorial claims on other countries, it is Cambodia. But
our country agrees, on account of its love of peace, to surrender those claims— on condition,
however, that its neighbours and other countries do not contest its current frontiers.
Unfortunately, the Government in Saigon stubbornly refuses to recognize them, even
continuing to demand that we surrender to South Vietnam our coastal islands off Kep and Ream.
And Thailand, for its part, refuses to stop laying claim to our Temple of Preah Vihear and the
surrounding area.
Finally, for the most part, the other countries, which are not direct neighbours, abandon all
sense of justice and, in order to avoid upsetting the Vietnamese and the Thais, refrain from
recognizing our frontiers, which are legitimate and legally irrefutable, but contested by our
incorrigibly expansionist neighbours.
To date, other than the France of General de Gaulle, no country has yet been willing or able
to declare that it recognizes, or even respects, our territorial integrity within our current frontiers.
This persistent refusal on the part of even our closest friends (with the exception of France) leaves
a serious threat hanging over our future. Indeed, we are now, as a result, under no illusions
regarding the possibility of our country being able to count on sincere friendship, or even a simple
sense of fairness, on the part of the outside world. We are forced to conclude that the world is
currently in the process of renouncing all of the moral values that have been a credit to humanity
for so long. For today, feelings no longer have any place whatsoever in a materialistic world that
feels no pity for the small and the weak. The various forms of friendship, support, solidarity and
assistance are now regarded solely as a function of the individual interests of those offering them.
What is more, they cannot be blamed for that, since it is “the normal way of things” in today’s
world. However, this “way of things”, needs to be recognized and faced up to by all of our
compatriots.
The 6 million Khmers need to know and always remember that the survival of their
homeland can be assured only by their own actions and sacrifices. They should not believe,
therefore, that anyone else can love and save Kampuchea in their place. The Vietnamese people,
for example, are right to believe that they need, above all, to rely on themselves in order to succeed
in standing up to the murderous advances of their American and other aggressors.
Were our country one day to face such mortal peril, our nation would need to be strong
enough to confront it. The true strength of a country such as ours, small and poor, with a small
population and highly permeable frontiers, lies solely in its national unity.
I have already spent 25 years of my life forging that unity and then working ceaselessly to
consolidate it. And just when I thought [. . .]
___________
ANNEX 18
United Nations document of 2 March 1967, “Memorandum on the actual
situation with regard to the negotiations of the U.N. Mission
to Cambodia and Thailand”
ANNEX 19
Account of Prince Sihanouk’s press conference of 22 October 1967
ANNEX 19
Account of Prince Sihanouk’s press conference
of 22 October 1967
[Translation]
Three-month extension to de Ribbing’s mission, with a further three months if the Thais remain
quiet
All steps taken to ensure the safety and peace of mind of Mrs. Kennedy
No more trade with Japan if it continues to ignore our frontiers
20 days in Cambodia for journalists
Phnom Penh, 22 October 1967
In the course of a press conference on the evening of Sunday 22 October 1967 at the Kantha
Bopha palace, the Head of State, in the presence of Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs
Nguon Chhay Kry, spoke with representatives of the “Agence France Presse”, “Reuters” and
“Agence Khmère de Presse” news agencies about the following issues:
De Ribbing’s mission and its extension
In a written note given to Samdech Norodom Sihanouk by Mr. Herbert de Ribbing, his
personal representative in Cambodia and Thailand, Mr. Thant, Secretary-General of the United
Nations, expresses in strong terms his disappointment at the letter from the Royal Khmer
Government asking that Mr. de Ribbing’s mission not be extended when it comes to an end on
15 November.
Although he has no intention of in any way opposing the decision by Cambodia, which is a
sovereign State, the Secretary-General of the United Nations believes that the mission still has a
useful role to play and would like it to continue. If the Cambodian decision is based on financial
considerations, Mr. Thant promises to look for ways of alleviating the burden on Cambodia.
At the request of its author, Samdech will not publish the note in question. He considers,
however, that it is his duty to inform the public and the international community of its existence in
order to put a stop to any speculation at Cambodia’s expense.
It should be said, first of all, that Cambodia asked for the mission not to be extended because
it was not managing to find common ground between the two countries in question and, what is
more, was in no way preventing the Thais from carrying out incessant attacks on our frontiers.
The mission’s operating costs are to be divided equally between Thailand and Cambodia.
Since it was first established, the mission has cost Cambodia US$44,000, the equivalent of
two million riels in hard currency.
That is a very heavy burden for Cambodia, which is poor — very poor. However, it is not a
burden at all for Thailand, which, having sold itself to the enormously wealthy Americans, is very
rich. What weapons and ammunition could we have bought with US$44,000 in order to defend
ourselves against the Thais?
- 2 -
Peace, however, is priceless, and we would gladly pay 100 times as much if we could secure
lasting peace between our neighbours and us. His Excellency U Thant and Mr. de Ribbing, and
through them, the international community, should know that Thailand requested— for it was
them who requested this— the [illegible] of de Ribbing’s mission in order to use that as security,
as cover to conceal the crimes committed on Cambodia’s frontiers by the Thai army and by the
Khmer Serei, who are supported, equipped and armed by Thailand.
During Mr. Nils G. Gussing’s mission, the mission that preceded that of Mr. de Ribbing,
things were different. Firstly, that mission, which was smaller in scale than the current one, cost
less, and while Mr. Gussing was present the Thais suspended their attacks on Cambodia’s frontiers.
Those attacks began again once the Thais’ request that Nils Gussing’s mission be brought to an end
had been granted.
Today, the opposite is true. The Thais use de Ribbing’s mission as a guarantee of their
good-will towards their Cambodian neighbour and, under the cover of that guarantee, assassinate
that neighbour. The Thai navy is bombarding the coastal region in Koh Kong province and Thai
artillery is bombarding border areas in Battambang and Oddor Meanchey, while the Khmer Serei
are laying mines in those same areas, which are killing indiscriminately: both civilians and military
personnel; both peasants and provincial guards.
The Thais are still daring to claim that the loss of life that they are inflicting on Cambodia is
the result of a rebellion plaguing this country, a rebellion against the Sihanouk régime by the
Khmer Serei, who live on Cambodian soil. And yet, all informed observers know that there is not
one member of the Khmer Serei in Cambodia. If, by chance, one were to venture into Cambodia,
he would be at considerable risk of dying there, with peasants either killing him themselves or
handing him over to the authorities.
The Khmer Serei, we [illegible] too, live in Thailand, being supported, paid, equipped and
armed by the Thais so that they can come and carry out attacks in Cambodian territory close to the
frontier, from which those traitors rarely stray far.
New proposal by Mr. Thanat Khoman concerning Cambodia’s frontiers
Mr. de Ribbing also conveys to the Head of State a new proposal by Mr. Thanat Khoman,
Thailand’s Minister for Foreign Affairs, regarding the Khmero-Thai frontier. Thailand, that
declaration says, respects the two countries’ common frontier as currently defined by the treaties,
but reserves the right to have recourse to international organizations in order to have that frontier
revised in its favour were international law to permit such a revision.
Samdech states, in essence, that it goes without saying that, should the need arise, Thailand
would be able to rely on all of the advantages and guarantees that all civilized nations enjoy under
international law. However, there is no point in addressing rights that are enjoyed by everyone and
cannot be contested by Cambodia in the declaration recognizing Cambodia’s current frontiers that
Cambodia requires from Thailand in order to resume friendly relations with it.
Preah Vihear cannot be shared with Thailand or made neutral
Mr. de Ribbing, doubtless at Bangkok’s instigation, “sounds out” the Head of State on
two questions that are surprising to say the least: Would you accept Preah Vihear being shared by
Cambodia and Thailand? If not, would you accept it being made neutral?
Samdech’s response is that Preah Vihear is not Jerusalem and there is no question of it being
either shared with Thailand or made neutral like another Republic of Andorra.
- 3 -
Aside from the fact that the International Court of Justice in The Hague has already issued a
ruling and there is no going back on decisions made with the force of res judicata, the country’s
territorial integrity should not be brought into question. All around Preah Vihear, the Thais have,
by laying barbed wire around it, kept the strip of land that runs between the base of the Temple and
the frontier, which lies several metres away as intended by the treaties reaffirmed by the decision of
the International Court of Justice. There is no question of their being accorded any further
advantages in the interests of being kind and facilitating the re-establishment of relations with
them.
On the contrary, the Thais must return to us the land situated between the ruins of Preah
Vihear and the frontier line.
Will France share Deauville and Nice with its neighbours across the Channel in order to
please the English who are fond of those two towns? As for making Preah Vihear neutral, why not
then make Siemreap Angkor neutral, and then Phnom Penh? Preah Vihear is a Khmer temple
situated, according to the treaties, in Cambodia, and there is no reason for Cambodia not to retain
full ownership without sharing it.
Both in Bangkok and Phnom Penh, Mr. de Ribbing says, all that people want is
reconciliation between the two countries. It seems, therefore, says Samdech, that the only obstacle
to this is Sihanouk. And yet, if Mr. de Ribbing had left the capital to find out what the population
as a whole thinks, he would know that the people are in complete agreement with Sihanouk and
will not accept any compromise with Thailand that affects the frontiers and integrity of Khmer
territory. The only people who really want the prompt re-establishment of relations with Bangkok
at any price are those who want to be able to go there to traffic goods or enjoy themselves, and they
are traitors to their Khmer homeland.
As a sign of his regard and admiration for Mr. Thant, and out of regard also for
Mr. de Ribbing, Samdech agrees to a three-month extension to de Ribbing’s mission— i.e., for the
period from 15 November 1967 to 15 February 1968. That mission will then be extended by a
further three months in three months’ time if the Thais and their protégés the Khmer Serei suspend
their attacks on our frontiers . . . since it is peace that we want most, the Head of State concludes,
and one cannot put a price on that.
___________
ANNEX 20
Account of Prince Sihanouk’s press conference of 31 July 1967,
“Preah Vihear still claimed by Thailand”
ANNEX 20
Account of Prince Sihanouk’s press conference of 31 July 1967,
“Preah Vihear still claimed by Thailand”
[Translation]
PRESS CONFERENCE:
AUSTRALIA AND CAMBODIA’S CURRENT FRONTIERS
FATE OF AMERICAN PRISONERS HELD BY THE NATIONAL LIBERATION FRONT
PREAH VIHEAR STILL CLAIMED BY THAILAND
Phnom Penh, 31 July 1967
1. Australia’s position with regard to Cambodia’s current frontiers
2. Fate of the American prisoners held by the National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam
3. Thailand continuing to lay claim to Preah Vihear
These were the three issues addressed on Monday 31 July 1967 by Samdech, Head of State,
in the presence of representatives of Agence France Presse, Reuters and Agence Khmère de Presse
at a press conference held at midday in the conference hall of the Chamcar Mon State palace.
I. Official translation of the press statement issued by Australia’s Minister for Foreign
Affairs
Samdech begins by reading, in English, the statement made to the press in Canberra on
25 July 1967 by Mr. Paul Hasluck, Australia’s Minister for Foreign Affairs. The unofficial
translation of that statement reads:
“In response to the questions put to him in relation to a statement made
yesterday by Prince Sihanouk concerning relations between Cambodia and [illegible]
yet been received from the Royal Cambodian Government on this matter.
Mr. Hasluck recalled that on 8 July, in response to a request by the Cambodian
Government, Australia’s ambassador in Phnom Penh had conveyed to Cambodia’s
Minister for Foreign Affairs a letter confirming that Australia respects Cambodia’s
territorial integrity within its current frontiers. The terms of that letter were identical
to those used by France, Singapore and the Soviet Union in similar declarations made
previously. Before the Australian declaration was conveyed, it was explained to the
Cambodian Government that this declaration did not mean that Australia had taken a
position on the definition and precise location of Cambodia’s frontiers, since this was
a matter for Cambodia and its neighbours. The Australian ambassador had understood
from the Cambodian Government that a declaration made on that basis would be
acceptable to Cambodia. Prince Sihanouk and Cambodia’s Minister for Foreign
Affairs then welcomed the Australian declaration.
- 2 -
Mr. Hasluck said that reports received from Phnom Penh indicated that the
Cambodian Government was currently seeking to obtain statements from other
countries declaring their recognition of and respect for Cambodia’s current frontiers.
In certain regions, the exact location of those frontiers had not been definitively
established on maps or on the ground. Australia respects and will continue to respect
the territorial integrity and frontiers of Cambodia and its neighbours, but cannot
commit itself on the question of the exact location of the frontier in certain regions in
the absence of detailed knowledge regarding the maps and the terrain itself. The
Australian declaration did not involve or commit [illegible]. Mr. Hasluck again
affirmed the Australian Government’s [illegible] desire to maintain its good relations
with Cambodia.”
Samdech says that this declaration invites as much comment regarding other countries as it
does regarding Australia.
Recalling that the letter from the Australian Government confirming that Australia respects
Cambodia’s territorial integrity within its current frontiers was formulated in terms identical to
those already used by France, Singapore and the Soviet Union, Mr. Hasluck appears to wonder why
the Cambodian Government, having accepted the declarations made by those three countries, did
not accept that made by Australia.
After explaining that Singapore and Cambodia had signed a joint declaration in which the
two Governments concerned acknowledged their mutual respect for their respective current
frontiers, Samdech remarks that France, the Soviet Union and Singapore did not follow their
declarations with reservations and restrictions. Only Australia did that.
Moreover, Cambodia has since requested formal recognition of its frontiers.
Samdech says, in this regard, that he is pleased to announce that Peking has just responded to
this request, the first to do so, informing the Cambodian Government that respect for Cambodia’s
current frontiers should also be taken to mean recognition thereof.
Two prior—and absurd—questions
Mr. Hasluck says: “Before the Australian declaration was conveyed, it was explained to the
Cambodian Government that this declaration did not mean that Australia had taken a position on
the definition and precise location of Cambodia’s frontiers [. . .]. The Australian ambassador had
understood from the Cambodian Government that a declaration made on that basis would be
acceptable to Cambodia.”
How could the Cambodian Government have gone along with that? In order to get the
Khmer Government to accept it, the Australian ambassador asked it two questions to that end.
The response given to those questions is the subject of the Head of State’s signed editorial in
July’s issue of “Kambuja”, which will appear shortly. Samdech reads it out:
“Countries of the ‘free’ world, white ‘Asian’ States, are adopting a position that
I consider scandalous with regard to our territorial integrity. Indeed, they have just
asked us two questions prior to a possible declaration expressing ‘respect’ for our
current frontiers.
The first question is: ‘Is Cambodia suggesting and acknowledging that,
notwithstanding this declaration, the way remains open for negotiations regarding the
delimitation of those same frontiers with its neighbours?’
- 3 -
It is clear that our response can only be ‘no’. The question posed is, moreover,
absurd. Indeed, we are asking that our frontiers be frozen in order to achieve peace
and secure a guarantee protecting us against the habitual expansionism of our
neighbours. But while we were careful to adopt the language of law [illegible]
historical and other rights, it is clear to everyone that this freezing of frontiers is
favourable to neighbouring countries, not to Cambodia. The National Front for the
Liberation of South Vietnam and the Democratic Republic of Vietnam are perfectly
aware of that . . .
Thus, these countries of the ‘free’ world, or white Asian countries, strive to
provide us with illusory satisfaction, while assuring their allies in Saigon and Bangkok
that they will have opportunities to put the issue of Cambodia’s frontiers back on the
table. That manoeuvre is, in reality, entirely transparent.
As regards Vietnam, I would like to point out that we have already recognized,
de jure, the National Liberation Front and the Democratic Republic of Vietnam as the
sole representatives of Vietnam. There is therefore no question of our discussing
frontiers with the Saigon régime, which has, in our eyes, ceased to exist from a legal
perspective.
As for Thailand, is it necessary to repeat once again that, before bringing the
case of Preah Vihear before the International Court of Justice, we proposed the joint
administration of that major religious site, on the sole condition that Cambodia’s
sovereignty was recognized? The Government in Bangkok categorically rejected that
proposal and agreed to have the ICJ decide the matter.
When, in the months that followed, we found ourselves before the Court in The
Hague, Prince Wongsamahip, Thailand’s representative, proposed that we never
contest the forthcoming judgment, regardless of its nature. Cambodia solemnly
agreed to this proposal. But when the ICJ confirmed Khmer sovereignty over Preah
Vihear, the Thais broke their promise and refused to accept the Court’s decision.
So, Thailand agreed to recognize the competence and authority of the ICJ and
then pledged to comply with its decision, only to then declare, ultimately, that it
considered itself free of all commitments. Thailand’s promises were linked, as we
know, to the absolute conviction that the western countries represented in The Hague
were in a position, politically, to ensure that its unjust cause triumphed.
Contrary to the claims of the western Governments that have not recognized the
Khmero-Thai frontier, this is not a question of siding with Phnom Penh against
Bangkok or vice versa. It is not a question of acting kindly, or not, towards Cambodia
or Thailand. It is simply a choice between, on the one side, international law, the
Charter of the United Nations and respect for the highest international court, and on
the other side, the law of the jungle.
Today, the Thais seek to propagate the theory that the current frontier between
Cambodia and Thailand was ‘mapped out and imposed by French colonialists’. And
yet, that frontier was confirmed in 1947 by the Washington Conciliation Commission,
which comprised the United States, Great Britain and . . . Peru. France did not feature,
so could not impose anything on Thailand. But the fact is that Thailand’s leaders,
highly compromised by their alliance with Japan’s fascists, were keen to clear their
name and get back in favour with the British, Americans and others by showing
respect for treaties that they had violated just a few years earlier.
- 4 -
Everyone knows that the Siamese are constant in their piratical cynicism, just
waiting for the right moment to seize the land of their Cambodian, Lao, Burmese and
Malay neighbours. It is therefore shameful that certain powers in the ‘free’ or
‘neutralist’ world leave the way open, or even open it, for these Thai pirates.
The second question asked by these westerners is even more stupid than the
first. They ask us ‘if Cambodia would agree to them issuing a parallel declaration on
their respect for the Khmero-Thai and Khmero-South Vietnamese frontiers in the
event that Bangkok and Saigon asked them for such a favour . . .
There are effectively two possibilities here. Either Nguyen Cao Ky and
Thanom Kittikachorn request a declaration of respect for the current frontiers, which
is highly unlikely and impossible, given the renewed territorial claims that have just
been made. Cambodia, of course, would have no problem with that at all!
Or they request a declaration of respect for frontiers that match their
expansionist aims —that is to say, frontiers that annex our coastal islands and place as
many Khmer villages as possible in South Vietnam, and place Preah Vihear and other
Khmer land in Thailand.
Unless the world has gone mad, how could one imagine that a government,
a fortiori of western race and civilization, so with a certain degree of logic, could
declare that it recognized or respected two different paths for the same frontier at the
same time? We are distraught at the idea that anyone could accept such a contradiction
and appalled that they would think that Cambodia was willing to participate in that
ridiculous game. And yet, it is western countries with geographical ties to Asia that
have not hesitated to submit to our Government the two questions that I have been at
pains to outline to my readers. I will leave those readers to draw their own
conclusions.
NORODOM SIHANOUK.”
The Head of State explains that, by current frontiers, he means those within which
Cambodian sovereignty is exercised.
Regardless of what Mr. Hasluck says, there are maps of Cambodia. Those maps were drawn
up by the French at the time of the protectorate. It was also the French themselves who mapped out
the frontier between Cambodia and South Vietnam (formerly Cochin-China).
At the time, that frontier was marked out, but . . . Ngo Dinh Diem’s soldiers subsequently
took it upon themselves to move it. We recall that in 1958, in the province of Stung Treng, those
markers were moved back 4 km into Cambodian territory.
Nevertheless, in the absence of markers, the maps remain, which the Khmer Government
makes available to countries interested in Cambodia’s frontiers. It should also be noted that while,
on the Vietnamese side, the frontier was delimited unilaterally by the French, on the Thai side, the
frontier was the subject of international treaties.
The test of friendship
In all honesty, this issue of frontiers has allowed Cambodia to see the real sentiments of
those who profess to be its friends. Thus far, we note that all of the countries aligned with the
Americans have refused to do as Cambodia asks.
- 5 -
Australia’s illusory declaration of respect for Cambodia’s current frontiers following
agreements with Bangkok, Saigon and Washington was, in fact, made solely with the aim of
keeping open the Australian embassy in Phnom Penh, an antenna serving the Americans and their
allies.
Cambodia cannot be fooled. And it remains understood that Cambodia will maintain
friendly relations only with those countries that formally recognize its current frontiers.
In response to the AFP correspondent Mr. Jean Barré, who asks whether the less rigid
formulation “respect for territory placed under Cambodian sovereignty” could not be substituted
for “recognition of the current frontiers”, Samdech says that the exercise of sovereignty can be
called into question, at a given point, by enemy units making an incursion, while the current
frontiers themselves cannot be altered.
Samdech says that, ultimately, our so-called friends have a choice: law or the law of the
jungle.
The fate of the Americans taken prisoner by the National Front for the Liberation of South
Vietnam
Samdech reads a letter dated 19 July 1967 from Mr. Nguyen Huu Tho, President of the
Presidium of the Central Committee of the National Liberation Front in South Vietnam, a letter that
has been conveyed to him by the National Liberation Front’s representative in Phnom Penh:
“Samdech,
In response to your letter of 29 June 1967, I reaffirm the terms of my own letter
dated 15 August 1966, in which I gave you information regarding the health of
G. Hertz. There have been no new developments since then. I also confirm that,
regardless of the atrocious crimes perpetrated against the Vietnamese people on a
daily basis by the American aggressors and their lackeys, as well as the vile treatment
reserved for Vietnamese patriots falling into their hands, we invariably pursue a policy
of humanity with regard to our prisoners. Fighting for a just cause, we adopt neither
the despicable behaviour nor the hypocritical attitude of our enemies. Although on
24 June and 26 September 1965, the Front found itself obliged to mete out
well-deserved punishment to Arnett, Versace and Noraback, that was because the
American aggressors and the puppet Government in Saigon had tortured Vietnamese
patriots in an extremely barbaric manner in Saigon and Da Nang, despite our
warnings, and because the above-mentioned individuals personally committed serious
crimes against the people. However, the Front made public the decision taken in
respect of Arnett, Versace and Noraback at the time.
As for Ramsey, the terms of the declaration of 12 June 1967 by the Command
of the Armed Forces of Liberation make it sufficiently clear that he remains alive. His
fate depends on the conduct of the American imperialists and their lackeys following
the warning of 12 June 1967.
Finally, I must also confirm that, despite our policy of humanity with regard to
prisoners, we cannot grant any special treatment to individuals such as Hertz and
Ramsey.
- 6 -
Understanding and admiring the spirit of humanity and generosity that has led
you to respond to the prayers of the Hertz and Ramsey families, I hope that this letter
will fully satisfy you.
Yours sincerely,
(Signed) NGUYEN HUU THO.”
Samdech explains that his friendship with Presidents Ho Chi Minh and Nguyen Huu Tho,
friendship that he is criticized for by the Americans, is sometimes to their advantage. That
friendship has saved a number of American lives, and today it means that they can have news of
Americans held prisoner by the Front.
Samdech says that, in this case, all he did was respond to an appeal by a sobbing wife and
children, and he does not expect any recognition from the Americans. He would have liked,
however, for their press to show him some respect. Unfortunately, that has not been the case.
Devoting a long article, dated 21 July 1967, to the “secret fight to free Vietcong prisoner
Gust. Hertz”, the magazine “Life” writes: “A year ago, Schwartz appealed ‘on a humanitarian
basis’ for definite news of Hertz from the erratic Prince Sihanouk of Cambodia, who has
established formal diplomatic relations with the NLF.”
Look at how the Americans behave after making use of Sihanouk’s good offices!
Thailand and Preah Vihear
In declaring that Thailand intends, by peaceful means, to have recognized its rights in respect
of Preah Vihear, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Thanat Khoman, has invalidated all of his
previous declarations, which stated that Thailand had no territorial claims to make against
Cambodia.
With diplomatic relations with Thailand having been broken off on account of Preah Vihear,
those relations cannot be re-established while the Thais continue to lay claim to the Temple.
“It is not through any lack of good-will on my part”, says Samdech, that reconciliation with
our neighbours is not possible.
The Head of State then remarks on the “insinuations by the left”, which rejects any
accommodation of either Thailand or America. In his editorial dated Monday 31 July 1967 in “La
Nouvelle Dépêche”, entitled “General de Gaulle: a great statesman”, he writes: “In fighting the
American hegemony, they (the General’s policies) also protect the interests of developing nations
from its abuses. It is those policies that make a nation great, not the other way around.”
Samdech declares that he has only ever sought conciliation in the well-understood interests
of his country. Even in his anti-Americanism, his only concern is the interests of Cambodia, not
those of the communist strategy.
___________
ANNEX 21
Corrections made by Prince Sihanouk on 30 September 1967 “concerning two articles,
one in the American press and the other in Singapore’s pro-Peking press,
which have come together to impugn the neutrality
of Cambodia and Sihanouk”
ANNEX 21
Corrections made by Prince Sihanouk on 30 September 1967 “concerning two articles, one in
the American press and the other in Singapore’s pro-Peking press, which have come
together to impugn the neutrality of Cambodia and Sihanouk”
[Translation]
Chamcar Mon State palace, 30 September 1967
Until Samdech adopted a strong stance in the face of the recent Chinese interference in
Cambodia’s domestic politics, only the American press and, with it, the press of the “free” world
that supports American imperialism questioned the neutrality of Prince Sihanouk, with both
accusing him of being a false neutral, pro-communist and pro-China.
When Samdech put a stop to the Cultural Revolution’s intrusion into Khmer territory and the
anti-national behaviour of the small number of Cambodians who had rallied behind the ideology of
that revolution, it gave the American press a new ally.
Disconcerted and vexed by Sihanouk’s attitude, which has just put an end to the subversive
actions of pro-Chinese Cambodians, China is, in its external press (that published in Singapore, in
this case), now also attacking Khmer neutrality. According to that press, Cambodia, in picking a
quarrel with China, is preparing to join America.
For its part, the American press, while still refusing to recognize Sihanouk as a true neutral,
attributes Sihanouk’s change of attitude with regard to the Chinese to fear of the Americans.
Despite the fact that events every day give the lie to that vain hypothesis, that press continues
to believe in an American victory in Vietnam, so it claims that it is the [illegible] determination to
remain in south-east Asia, regardless of the cost, that is dictating Sihanouk’s behaviour. Fearing
that he will soon be alone, face to face with a victorious America, the Prince, the press says, is now
seeking friendship with America by distancing himself from Peking.
In a press conference held on the evening of Friday 29 September 1967 in the conference
hall of the Chamcar Mon State palace in the presence of Son Sann, Prime Minister in the Royal
Government, and Tep Chhieu Kheng, Under-Secretary of State to the President of the Council with
responsibility for the press, as well as the usual representatives of the “Agence France Presse”,
“Reuters” and “Agence Khmère de Presse” news agencies, Samdech, Head of State, commented on
two recent articles, one appearing in “The New York Times” on 15 September and the second
appearing in “Sin Chew Jih Poh” in Singapore on 18 September, again clarifying Cambodia’s
position with regard to America on the one hand and China on the other.
Cambodia’s position vis-à-vis the former remains entirely unchanged and will remain so for
as long as the United States maintains its hostile attitude towards Cambodia, refusing to recognize
its current frontiers and failing to put an end to the incessant violation of those frontiers by
American and South Vietnamese forces.
Cambodia’s position vis-à-vis the latter has altered solely on account of the attitude of China,
which, since the Cultural Revolution, has stopped respecting Cambodia’s internal affairs, thereby
ceasing to respect the first of the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence adopted in Bandung.
Regardless of what the American press says, Sihanouk is in no way the impetuous and
unpredictable Prince that the press so often make him out to be.
- 2 -
On the contrary, [illegible] and informed observers can see that Samdech is merely applying
a policy of reciprocity, which in no way runs counter to his observing a policy of strict neutrality, a
neutrality that moves neither to the right nor to the left.
International opinion needs to be aware of that.
What does “The New York Times” say?
Under the heading “Cambodia Is Believed Veering Away From Peking”, the author of the
article, John W. Finney, writes:
“WASHINGTON, Sept. 14
Prince Norodom Sihanouk, the Cambodian chief of state, appears to United
States observers to be veering away from Communist China and assuming a more
neutralist position. This, they say, may permit an eventual diplomatic reconciliation
with the United States.”
In response to this passage, Samdech says, in essence, that international opinion needs to
understand that Cambodia is not in any way linking the problems caused to it by China with those
caused to it by the United States of America.As long as the United States refuses to recognize our
current frontiers and fails entirely to prevent its forces and those of South Vietnam from violating
those frontiers, there is no question of our seeking rapprochement with it, even if China— and this
is not something that we envisage in any way; this is to show just how determined we are— even
if China went to war with us.
Whether these anti-Peking gestures were prompted by domestic political
tensions, were influenced by the course of the Vietnam war or were simply impetuous
moves by the unpredictable Prince remains unclear to analysts here . . .
Significance not clear
United States officials are not sure how much significance to attach to the recall
of the Cambodian diplomats, a move Prince Sihanouk explained was designed to
protect them against possible demonstrations at the Cambodian embassy in Peking.”
Which part of our behaviour is not clear? With the Chinese having acted in an unfriendly
manner towards us, we sought to signal our discontent by recalling our ambassador to Peking. You
would have to be an idiot not to understand.
“What does seem clear to United States officials, however, is that the Prince’s
moves fit into a developing pattern of a gradual deterioration over the last year or so of
the once close relations between Cambodia and China and reflect a re-evaluation of
his part of developments in Southeast Asia.”
The evolution of the situation in south-east Asia has nothing to do with our actions in
relation to China. America’s presence in Vietnam and the supposed increase in its military might
do not intimidate us in any way.
Moreover, Cambodia does not believe that the United States will prevail, regardless of the
means that they deploy. Sihanouk, for his part, is betting not on America but on his people, on the
Khmer people, on his clergy and on his vibrant youth.
- 3 -
“To a large extent, it is believed here, Prince Sihanouk’s moves have been
dictated by a desire to maintain a neutral position domestically and to reduce some of
the political tensions in his country. If he is turning away from Peking, analysts here
believe, it is partly because he has been provoked by the increasingly belligerent
anti-Government activities of some pro-Peking leftist groups in his country,
particularly in the three northern provinces, and annoyed by the criticism in some
Cambodian ranks over his apparent failure to crack down on the leftist groups.”
Aside from the fact that, rather than three provinces, it is only the Samlaut region, in
Battambang, that has had problems with the Khmer Vietminh, it is entirely wrong to link the
problems in Samlaut with the decision to dissolve the Khmero-Chinese Friendship Association.
Indeed, that decision, which was triggered by subversive activities made possible by that
association, was taken long after the return of calm and the easing of tensions in the Samlaut
region. But just as he does not fear leftist elements in Cambodia, Samdech does not fear those on
the right either, and they, too, have very recently been put in their place.
“Prince Sihanouk also may be responding to elements of domestic discontent,
which have now reached the point where there is no longer unquestioning response to
his leadership.”
Since we rejected their assistance, the Americans have been waiting for our economy to
collapse. However, while it is not flourishing, it is not in its death throes either.
What country does not have its difficulties? Ours are healthy, healthy in that they result
from our desire to live independently without recourse to external assistance, assistance that would
have the effect of polluting our régime.
The Americans should not be under any illusions. Neither the army nor the police regrets
not having their assistance, for they know what that assistance means for the country receiving it.
The example of Vietnam is very close at hand.
“Appraisal has changed
To a certain extent, however, it is believed Prince Sihanouk’s actions have been
influenced by a changing appraisal of the tide of power in Southeast Asia.
This seems to have prompted him to modify his tactics in achieving his
objective of guaranteeing the neutrality and territorial integrity of Cambodia.
When the Prince broke with the United States, he apparently believed China
would achieve predominant influence in Southeast Asia and that North Vietnam
would conquer South Vietnam. In an apparent attempt to preserve the neutrality of his
country against Chinese domination, he took a progressively harsher line toward the
United States and leaned more toward Peking and Hanoi.”
How is it conceivable that Cambodia turned towards Peking and Hanoi in order to save its
régime, which is a monarchy? Cambodia has only ever practised a policy of reciprocity. We
remained on friendly terms with Peking for as long as it acted in a friendly manner towards us. We
are still on friendly terms with Hanoi, since Hanoi has given us no reason to end that friendship.
What have the Americans given us? The bombing of our frontier villages, support for those
who betray us, the likes of Dap Chhuon, Sam Sary and the Khmer Serei, the refusal to recognize
our frontiers . . .
- 4 -
Will we now turn to them out of opportunism because, it seems, we are seeing their power
“grow” in south-east Asia?
Certainly not. We will only consent to rapprochement with them if they fulfil the
two above-mentioned conditions demanded of them.
“Prince Sihanouk apparently believes now that the war in Vietnam is going to
be more protracted than he had presumed a couple of years ago. He apparently feels
there will be a continuing United States presence in Southeast Asia, which will have
the effect of postponing the day when he has to worry about the power of Communist
China or a unified Vietnam. This, in turn, seems to have made him feel free to say
uncomplimentary things about Communist China and to mute his criticism of the
United States.”
The response to that is that, without the provocation of the Cultural Revolution, Cambodia
would still feel nothing but friendship for China. It is not the presence of the Americans and the
possibility of an American victory— which Cambodia does not believe will happen in any case—
that has caused Cambodia to cool relations with Peking.
It is solely the actions of Peking itself, the likes of Hu Nim and Phouk Chhay, and the
activities of pro-Chinese Cambodians within the old Khmero-Chinese Friendship Association that
have led to the relaxing of the friendship between Cambodia and China.
By smugly claiming that the spread of their power has dictated the actions of Cambodia and
Sihanouk with regard to China, the Americans simply make themselves look ridiculous and
obnoxious.
It should also be said that the position of China vis-à-vis Cambodia and Cambodia’s reaction
deprive the Americans of one of the pretexts for attacking us under their plan. They can now no
longer argue that we are “colluding” with Peking in order to send their forces and bombers into our
territory.
If they believe they can have us, Samdech concludes, our response is in the form of a single
word—that of Cambronne!
The “Sin Chew Jih Poh”, published in Singapore, attacks Sihanouk and Cambodia using the
same arguments as “The New York Times”
We provide here the French translation (translated by Mr. J. Barré from AFP) of the English
text read by the Head of State. Under the heading “China and Cambodia move apart”, the
newspaper’s editorial of 18 September 1967 reads:
“Cambodia has quarrelled with China. On the 11th of this month,
Prince Sihanouk, Head of State, accused China of intervening in Cambodia’s domestic
affairs. The following day, the authorities in Phnom Penh decided to recall their
ambassador to Peking. This was denied by the Cambodian embassy in Paris, but it
was ultimately confirmed that the authorities in Phnom Penh had in fact asked all of
their diplomats in Peking to return— with the exception of one sole individual, who
would stay and guard the chancellery.
- 5 -
Thus, while diplomatic relations between the two countries have not been
broken off immediately, they have already been frozen. What will happen to
Cambodia? This is somewhat difficult to predict, since the evolution of Cambodian
diplomacy does not adhere to logic. It depends, above all, on Sihanouk’s mood. As a
result, it is like passing clouds: impossible to grasp.”
One would think one was reading “The New York Times” or “Newsweek”.
“However, we have been predicting for some time that Sihanouk would choose
this path. Our editorial of 17 April 1967 contained this prediction: ‘the Prince is
using the Khmer Rouge revolt as an excuse to declare a state of emergency, in order to
get rid of Lon Nol’s cabinet, which was elected by the people, and allow his own
Counter-Government to take political power in that country’.”
Here, then, is a Chinese journalist defending Lon Nol’s cabinet — elected, he explains, by
the people. The journalist who wrote the editorial claims that, by forming a new Government to
replace that of General Lon Nol, Prince Sihanouk committed a coup d’état against the members of
the Sangkum— that is to say, members elected as representatives of Samdech, President of the
Sangkum! That is truly absurd!
While Peking supports a rightist former government, we also see the Khmer Serei supporting
the Khmer Rouge. What we see here is the enemies of Sihanouk— the “revisionist” Sihanouk—
colluding, joining forces in order to get rid of him.
“Our editorial of 1 May . . . also contained this prediction: ‘Cambodia is
currently preparing to change, with the percentage of people leaning to the right
(80-90 per cent) surpassing the percentage leaning to the left.’ Given the current
relations between China and Cambodia, that prediction has proved accurate.
Prince Sihanouk himself is certainly still doing all he can to conceal his rightist
leanings. Before recalling his ambassador to Peking, he quarrelled with Canberra.
Using as a pretext the fact that Australian newspapers had published reports claiming
that both China and Russia were using the port of Sihanoukville to transport arms and
supplies to the Vietcong, Prince Sihanouk recalled his ambassador to Australia. We
understand now that this was a smokescreen to conceal his rightist tendencies. He was
using his old ploy: sound out the east and attack the west . . .”
We really do not understand how Sihanouk, leaning to the right, as the editorialist suggests,
could have been in conflict with Lon Nol’s cabinet, which was a rightist cabinet. As for the quarrel
with Canberra, we know that it stemmed not from any transporting of arms and supplies destined
for the Vietcong, but from a simple letter from Samdech responding to a group of students at the
University of Melbourne.
“The dissolution of the Sino-Cambodian friendship association, the ban on
importing Chinese books into Cambodia, the limits on Chinese schools in Cambodia,
the permanent closure of Chinese newspapers and restrictions on the activities of
non-Cambodian Chinese: these anti-Chinese actions constitute the Khmer domestic
affairs in which China has no right to interfere.
In order to conceal his rightist leanings, Prince Sihanouk has also made
reference to General de Gaulle, who, according to him, is the ‘greatest friend of the
countries of south-east Asia’, and the Prince has described himself as ‘Gaullist’.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
- 6 -
The definition of neutrality is, of course, very vague, because the supposed
confrontation between the eastern and western blocs has now ended. Moscow’s
gradual submission to America has created a unilateral situation in the world. As a
result, even de Gaulle himself is no longer neutral. Today, his foreign policy has
two main objectives: make every effort possible to support the Kremlin as it totters
around, in the hope that it will remain upright and maintain the global balance of
power, so that the entire world is not monopolized by one single country— America.
And fight for unity among the countries of Europe with the aim of creating a
‘third power’ in order to avoid being dragged into an inevitable war crisis, a situation
that could easily be triggered by a monopolistic country.
What kind of neutrality does the Prince want? Let me describe his kind of
neutrality. What the Prince wants is simply lots of potential sources of assistance and
support.
From the source on the left, in China, he got all the benefits he could in the form
of military and financial assistance. China even stepped in, at his request, to persuade
Hanoi not to spy in Cambodia. Unfortunately, there have proved to be some problems
with that source, which the Prince has not liked.”
All of this is entirely tendentious, but let us look specifically at the end, which is not only
tendentious, but also dishonest. Contrary to the assertions of the editorialist at “Sin Chew Jit Poh”,
China did not put pressure on Hanoi to encourage it to treat Cambodia favourably; it was more the
other way round. Hanoi has always responded favourably to all of our tests of friendship. The
Democratic Republic of Vietnam, which recognized our current frontiers before Peking, has just
given Cambodia another warm declaration of support.
As regards the assistance that it has received, Cambodia, faithful to the teachings of Buddha,
has always been infinitely grateful to all who have given it such assistance, provided that they were
not concealing any subversive or anti-Khmer intentions. And Cambodia will always be grateful to
China for the assistance it has provided.
It would feel the same way about America, had that country not sought, through that
assistance, to gain control of the country’s domestic sovereignty and economy.
Samdech reveals, in this regard, that Mrs. Kennedy, wife of the late president, who died so
tragically, will shortly be making a private visit to Cambodia. Samdech himself will accompany
her to Sihanoukville, where an avenue will be dedicated to the late president’s memory. That will
be a purely emotional act and in no way political in nature. It will be a tribute by Cambodia to a
particular aspect of America, an individual president of the United States who showed himself to be
friendly and respectful towards our country.
“From the left to the right: that is the only path possible for someone holding
the reins of power in his country (Samdech’s country) who proclaims himself to be a
‘socialist’. Moreover, with 500,000 American soldiers and the 7th fleet in South
Vietnam, plus the Thai navy, army and air force, North Vietnam no longer needs
Chinese protection. And seeing the surprising economic prosperity in Thailand caused
by the presence of American bases, it is logical for the Prince to regret not having
made Sihanoukville available to the Americans as the Thais did with Bangkok.”
Sihanouk has never been on the left or the right, always remaining in the centre. And
“centrists” make up 99 per cent of Cambodia. Our foreign policy is also anchored in the centre. It
does not go from America to China and vice versa. Our foreign policy is based solely on
reciprocity.
- 7 -
And Sihanouk will never sell Sihanoukville to the Americans or anyone else.
“We believe, therefore, that the Prince’s quarrel with China is a prelude to the
re-establishment of relations between Cambodia and America.”
By concluding in that manner, the Chinese editorialist aligns himself with the editor of “The
New York Times”. Vilified by first the Americans and now the Chinese, Cambodia’s sole
remaining friends are thus the USSR, de Gaulle’s France and the few countries that act in the same
way as they do in its regard.
But come what may, if it should go under, Cambodia will go down with flags flying, always
remaining true to that policy of reciprocity, which it constantly asserts.
CIA agents concealed in embassies
With the weekly publication “Réalités cambodgiennes” suggesting that the Cambodian
Government should declare personae non gratae all CIA agents concealed in embassies in Phnom
Penh, the Head of State believes that this was an error.
What would be the point of chasing these people out? We know full well who they are and
are able to follow them. If we get rid of them, they will be replaced by others, whom we will then
have to uncover . . .
Regardless of what Thailand’s Minister for Foreign Affairs says, Cambodia is not a satellite
of China
An AFP telegram from Bangkok dated 28 September 1967 contained the following:
“The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Thanat Khoman, declared today that
Thailand had given up all hope of normalizing relations with Cambodia, before
leaving Bangkok for New York, where he will present to the United Nations the views
of his Government on the problem of Vietnam.
The Minister considers that China has forbidden Cambodia from normalizing
relations with its neighbours and participating in regional international organizations,
particularly the recently established south-east Asian association.”
That telegram led to those other comments by Samdech, those detailed prior to his remarks
on the articles in “The New York Times” and “Sin Chew Jih Poh”.
While it is quite clear that China has no desire to see Cambodia reconciled with Thailand or
the United States of America, the actions of our country are certainly not dictated by China. While
Thailand has been colonized by America, Cambodia, for its part, is nobody’s satellite.
If Thailand removes the obstacle of Preah Vihear, if Thailand talks of (unqualified) respect
for our current frontiers, China will not prevent us from renewing friendly relations with Thailand.
As for the south-east Asian association, it is indeed true that Cambodia refuses to associate
with anybody, and certainly not with an association that is in fact dominated by a rich and powerful
non-Asian State to whom you are nothing, who potentially looks down on you and who is the only
one truly to profit from the association that it has instigated.
___________
ANNEX 22
AKP press release of 10 November 1967, “Cambodia’s
current frontiers”
ANNEX 22
AKP press release of 10 November 1967,
“Cambodia’s current frontiers”
[Translation]
10 November 1967, AKP, No. 6.080, p. 2
CAMBODIA’S CURRENT FRONTIERS
MRS. JACQUELINE KENNEDY: STRICTLY PERSONAL SUCCESS —THE INTERNATIONAL PRESS
IS ABLE TO GO AND INVESTIGATE AT THE FRONTIERS —THE FATE OF THE AMERICAN PRISONERS IN
VIETNAM
Phnom Penh (AKP)
In a press conference at the Chamcar Mon State palace at the end of the afternoon on
Wednesday 6 November 1967 in the presence of representatives of the “Agence France Presse”,
“Reuters” and “Agence Khmère de Presse” news agencies, the Head of State addressed the
following issues.
Cambodia’s current frontiers are not “the frontiers as defined by Sihanouk”, but rather the
frontiers as defined by international agreements.
Cambodia’s representative at the United Nations sent the following telegram on
6 November 1967:
“‘The New York Times’ of 6 November reports from Washington that the
American authorities hold out little hope of achieving diplomatic reconciliation with
Cambodia, given the conditions set (ed.: the conditions indicated by Samdech in the
press conference held for the international press on 4 November in the Chakdomukh
hall). While the USA is offering, according to the authorities, to recognize
Cambodia’s territorial integrity, it does not intend to recognize the current frontiers as
defined by Prince Sihanouk, given that these are disputed by Cambodia’s neighbours
South Vietnam and Thailand.
The authorities in Washington consider that the issue should be resolved by the
countries in question. Those same authorities also state that Vietcong forces are using
Cambodia as a sanctuary and that it is impossible for the USA to guarantee that
Cambodia’s frontiers will not be violated by American and Vietnamese units in the
course of combat.”
Cambodia’s frontiers have not been defined by Sihanouk, any more than France’s frontiers
have been defined by General de Gaulle, England’s have been defined by the Queen of England or
Poland’s have been defined by President Ochab. They are defined by international agreements.
- 2 -
As regards the current Khmero-Thai frontier, that was defined by the treaty of
23 March 1907 and confirmed first by the settlement agreement signed in Washington on
17 November 1946 and then by the Washington Conciliation Commission, which was chaired by
an American (Mr. William Phillips), which concluded its work on 27 June 1947, and then finally
by the International Court of Justice in The Hague, which, in its Judgment of 15 June 1962,
declared that Preah Vihear belonged to Cambodia.
___________
ANNEX 23
Extract from Prince Sihanouk’s address of 21 February 1968,
“At Russey, near Preah Vihear Mountain”
ANNEX 23
Extract from Prince Sihanouk’s address of 21 February 1968,
“At Russey, near Preah Vihear Mountain”
[Translation]
At Russey, near Preah Vihear Mountain
Preah Vihear, 21 February 1968
Samdech warmly thanks the ten monks and “his children” from Russey for coming,
expressing his joy at being back close to the frontier among the people defending it, who, although
he visits them only rarely because of his many commitments, are always in his thoughts. Those
commitments include ceremonial openings, of which there are so many that, even going out every
week, as Samdech does, he is unable to attend them all.
Samdech recalls passing through Russey on 5 January 1963 following the Judgment of the
International Court of Justice in The Hague. He had alerted the international community. The
Thais had declared that he could come to take possession of Preah Vihear.
Since then, the Thais have tried, by a whole range of means, to retake that sanctuary. They
have, since 1962, revealed their bad faith by failing fully to implement the decision of the
International Court of Justice. The Court ordered that the Temple and the strip of land around it be
returned to Cambodia. And yet, the Thais have refused to surrender that land, laying barbed wire
around the edge of the Temple.
The Head of State then thanks the people living in the vicinity of Preah Vihear, the officials
and, in particular, the military, the provincial guards, the volunteers in local militia, who are all
entirely united in ensuring the defence of their homeland— doing so in particularly difficult
conditions, especially when the rains come, considerably disrupting the sending of reinforcements
and supplies.
The people defending the Temple have to do battle with the Thai forces and succeeded in
repelling a violent attack last year. They also have to do battle with the Khmer Serei, who are
aiding the Thais in their expansionist and murderous endeavours targeting our homeland. Those
traitors are laying deadly mines in our territory, close to the frontier, in the provinces of Preah
Vihear, Oddor Meanchey, Battambang and Koh Kong. Mines have also been placed on the path
and steps leading to the Temple. Committed to our liberty and independence, says Samdech, we
have stood up to the Thais and the traitorous Khmer Serei, despite the fact that both are receiving
assistance from their American masters.
Conditions for peace: mutual respect for current common frontiers
The United Nations wants Cambodia to be reconciled with Thailand. That is all that
Cambodia wants, the Head of State promises. Cambodia wants peace, but before it can be
reconciled with Thailand, Thailand must agree to sign, together with Cambodia, a joint declaration
proclaiming that the signatories pledge mutual respect for their two countries’ current common
frontiers.
The leaders in Bangkok have told Mr. de Ribbing that they have asked their press and radio
to stop their campaigns of calumnies and insults directed towards Samdech. But Samdech says,
what can those calumnies and insults do to me, when 99 per cent of the Khmer people are with me?
- 2 -
Mr. de Ribbing seemed surprised at how firm I was, so I had to explain to him that it was
defending the interests of my homeland—not my own interests —that meant I had to be that firm.
On the subject of de Ribbing’s mission, Samdech also says that this has ceased to serve any
purpose, since his presence in no way prevents our neighbours from committing their acts of
aggression and violating our frontiers. In this regard, we have just announced that a Thai helicopter
flew approximately 700 metres above Cambodian territory on 21 February, with F-105 jets flying
over the frontier region that same day.
However, the Thais have told Mr. de Ribbing that it was the Cambodians who were attacking
them. One wonders, Samdech says, how the Cambodians, with their small army, could launch an
attack on Thailand, which has a large, ultra-modern army of 300,000 men that benefits from
considerable support on the part of the Americans.
Whatever happens, we want peace, but we will not consent to the surrender of any of our
national territory. Were we to give ground to the Thais, who knows where we would end up? In
Phnom Penh, perhaps, which would be the point at which Thai expansionism and Vietnamese
expansionism met.
___________
ANNEX 24
Decision by the Cambodian Ministry of Worship and Religion of 12 November 1998
concerning the opening of a new pagoda
ANNEX 24
Decision by the Cambodian Ministry of Worship and Religion of
12 November 1998 concerning the opening of a new pagoda
[Translation]
Unofficial French translation
KINGDOM OF CAMBODIA
Nation Religion King
Ministry of Worship and Religion
No. 177/98 MCR.A
Phnom Penh, 12 November 1998
DECISION
on the opening of a new pagoda
In view of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Cambodia
— In view of the royal decree of 1 November 1993 on the nomination of the Royal Cambodian
Government
— In view of Royal Kram No. NS/KR/0194-19 of 24 January 1996 promulgating the law on the
creation of the Ministry of Worship and Religion
— In view of Sub-Decree No. 22 SD of 22 June 1992 on the organization and functioning of the
Ministry of Worship and Religion
— In view of Sub-Decree No. 13 SD.C of 19 February 1993 on the organization and functioning
of the Ministry of Worship and Religion
— In view of the request made by the Department of Worship and Religion of the Province of
Preah Vihear
DECIDES
Article 1
Authorization is granted for the construction of a new pagoda under the name
Keo Sikha Kiri Svarak Pagoda, called the Pagoda of the Temple of Preah Vihear, in the village
of Preah Vihear, in the commune of Kantuot, in the Choam Ksan district of the province of Preah
Vihear.
Article 2
That new pagoda is made available to the bonzes and the faithful so that they may practise
Buddhism and hold ceremonies in accordance with the prohibitions and commandments imposed
by Buddha, as well as the law of the State.
- 2 -
Article 3
The Cabinet, the Directorate-General for Worship, the Department of Administration and
Finance, the Department of Worship and Religion of the Province of Preah Vihear, the pagoda’s
lay organizing committee and the faithful must, in co-operation with the officiating bonzes of the
province and the district, as well as relevant authorities at all levels, ensure the appropriate
implementation of this decision and provide financial support for this pagoda to the extent possible.
Article 4
This decision entered into force on the day it was signed.
Secretary of State of the Ministry
of Worship and Religion,
(signature and seal) HIEN VANROTH.
Copies to:
Supreme leaders of the two orders
Ministry of the Interior
Ministry of National Defence
Office of the Province of Preah Vihear
Department of Worship and Religion of the Province of Preah Vihear
For information
As referred to in Article 3
For implementation
Documentation and archives
The Director of the Department of Legal and Consular Affairs of the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs and International Co-operation of the Kingdom of Cambodia certifies that the translation
overleaf of Decision No. 177/98 MCR.A of the Ministry of Worship and Religion of
12 November 1998 is a faithful rendering of the original text in the Khmer language.
Phnom Penh, 20 February 2012.
KER Vicseth,
Director,
Legal and Consular Department.
___________
ANNEX 25
Agreed Minutes of the First Meeting of the Thai-Cambodian Joint Commission
on Demarcation for Land Boundary, 30 June-2 July 1999
ANNEX 26
Terms of Reference and Master Plan for the Joint Survey and Demarcation of
Land Boundary between the Kingdom of Cambodia
and the Kingdom of Thailand
ANNEX 27
Aide memoire of 17 May 2007 sent by the Thai Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the
Cambodian Minister for Foreign Affairs and
the World Heritage Committee
Annex I
Excerpts from the Cambodian Royal Decree on Delimitation of the Protected
Site of the Temple of Preah Vihear (ns/rkt/0406/183)
[Translation]
Article 3: Any development of the protected site shall be subject to controls and shall
respect the boundary map of the area and its management, on the basis of the classification of the
protected zones.
Article 4: The protected site of the Temple of Preah Vihear is divided into 4 (four) different
zones which enjoy varying levels of protection.
(a) Zone 1: The area of the site of the Temple, referred to as the central zone, covers a total
surface area of 154.7 hectares and comprises the entire mount of the Temple of Preah Vihear,
from its summit at an altitude of 625 metres to an altitude of 500 metres, delimited by the
points with the following co-ordinates:
Points Latitude Longitude
1 14° 23' 59" 104° 41' 30"
2 14° 23' 41" 104° 41' 20"
3 14° 23' 28" 104° 41' 18"
4 14° 23' 13" 104° 41' 07"
5 14° 23' 18" 104° 40' 52"
6 14° 23' 27" 104° 40' 41"
7 14° 23' 44" 104° 40' 33"
8 14° 23' 49" 104° 40' 34"
9 14° 23' 50" 104° 40' 41"
It also extends to the Khmer-Thai frontier line and includes the historical stairway on the
eastern side of the mount, the co-ordinates of which are as follows:
Points Latitude Longitude
T 14° 23' 16" 104° 42' 12"
2 14° 23' 41" 104° 41' 20"
3 14° 23' 41" 104° 41' 05"
(b) Zone 2: This is the area of protection for the archaeological reserve, the cultural landscape and
the natural environment, referred to as the buffer zone and covering a total surface area of
2,642.5 hectares.
This zone is bounded by the perimeter of the central zone, the Khmer-Thai frontier line and the
centre line of the road beginning at the entry to the Ta Thav border area, following the shortest
route between points T, B, C (K1 villages) and D, and extending up to the 500 metre altitude
line on the mount of the Temple of Preah Vihear, the co-ordinates of those points being as
follows:
- 2 -
Points Latitude Longitude
B 14° 22' 19" 104° 42' 48"
C 14° 22' 34" 104° 40' 02"
D 14° 23' 22" 104° 40' 08"
T 14° 23' 16" 104° 42' 12"
Also included in Zone 2 is the area within a 60° angle based on point O at an altitude of
625 metres on the summit of the mount of the Temple of Preah Vihear, facing south and with a
longitudinal line dividing the angle into two equal parts. The two straight lines forming
angle O intersect the line from B to C at points F and G, creating a sector with an arc of 5 km
radius from points L to K, the co-ordinates of these points being as follows:
Points Latitude Longitude
O 14° 23' 18" 104° 41' 02"
F 14° 22' 37" 104° 40' 39"
G 14° 22' 29" 104° 41' 32"
K 14° 20' 56" 104° 42' 29"
L 14° 20' 55" 104° 39' 40"
As stated in the present Royal Decree, Zone 2 lies in a protected archaeological reserve and is
the property of the State. Any commerce, trade or concession relating to the land in Zone 2
shall be considered null and void.
This zone contains a wealth of archaeological remains which require the use of the land for
inappropriate development to be prevented.
(c) Zone 3: This is an area for economic and tourism development, referred to as the “satellite
zone”, which has a total surface area of 2,828.9 hectares and in which the existence, jobs,
traditional trades and lifestyles of the population already present in the area are to be preserved.
This zone is divided into 2 (two) separate parts: Zone 3a, with a surface area of 679.1 hectares,
and Zone 3b, with a surface area of 1,149.8 hectares. All the land in Zone 3 of the site of the
Temple of Preah Vihear is the property of the State. Any development projects in Zones 3a
and 3b shall adhere to an overall plan, a land use plan and any special provisions relating to
development, town planning and construction, to be determined by sub-decree.
The establishment of this zone is aimed at preserving the cultural and natural heritage through
measures designed to encourage sustainable development and to evaluate environmental
impacts.
(d) Zone 4: This zone is required for the conservation of natural resources, pursuant to Royal
Kram ns/rkm/1296/36 of 24 December 1996 promulgating the Law on Protection of the
Environment and the Management of Natural Resources; the Royal Decree of
1 November 1993 on the Creation and Delimitation of Nature Reserves; and Sub-Decree
No. 76/ankr/bk of 30 July 2002 creating the “Preah Vihear” Forest Reserves for the
Conservation of Forest Genetic Resources and Wild Fauna.
The boundary map of the site of the Temple of Preah Vihear is annexed to this Decree.
- 3 -
Article 6: The policy of the Supreme Council on National Culture shall be applied so as to
ensure the management, maintenance and protection of the Preah Vihear site by determining the
sovereign responsibilities of the competent institutions, including the Ministry of Culture and Fine
Arts, which is directly responsible for implementing that policy.
In accordance with Article 5 of the Law on Protection of Cultural Heritage, promulgated by
Royal Kram ns/rkm/0196/26 of 25 January 1996, the preservation and enhancement of the national
cultural heritage in the area of the Temple of Preah Vihear shall be entrusted to an Authority
responsible for the protection of the site and the management of the area of the Temple of
Preah Vihear, which will be created by Royal Decree.
That Authority shall be the only authority allowed to manage development of any kind
within the perimeter of the site of the Temple of Preah Vihear. In order to perform these tasks, the
Authority alone shall have the power to issue building permits outside the protection perimeter of
the site of the Temple of Preah Vihear.
Building permits in respect of the site issued by authorities other than the above-mentioned
Authority shall be considered null and void.
The rules and procedures concerning the management, maintenance and protection of the site
of the Temple of Preah Vihear, as referred to in the preceding articles, shall be laid down by
sub-decree.
___________
Annex IV
Non-paper
[Translation]
1. Given that the site which Cambodia has proposed for inclusion on the World Heritage List
is situated in an area in which the two countries claim different frontier lines, it appears prima facie
that the configuration of the “central zone and satellite zones” set forth in the Royal Decree of
19 April 2006 and featured on the reduced-size map included in Cambodia’s nomination file (i.e.,
the “General Plan for the zoning of Preah Vihear”) extends over Thai territory, according to the
L7017 series 1:50000 scale map used by Thailand. In this respect, Thailand would be grateful if
Cambodia would kindly:
(1) provide the said map in its original size, so that Thailand can accurately assess the implications
of the proposed zoning for the frontier line and the exercise of territorial jurisdiction;
(2) present the measures envisaged by Cambodia for managing that part of the said central zone
which Thailand considers to form part of its national territory;
(3) consider the possibility of delimiting the central zone in such a way that it does not raise
territorial concerns for Thailand.
2. Under the World Heritage Convention, the inclusion of the Temple of Preah Vihear on the
UNESCO World Heritage List on the basis of a unilateral procedure carried out by the
Cambodian Government will result in obligations to protect that site and its immediate vicinity
which will be incumbent on the Cambodian Government alone. Since Thailand did not participate
in that procedure, under no circumstances would it be bound by those obligations. Thus, in order to
protect and preserve this priceless ancient structure, our two countries must work together to reach
solutions by mutual agreement which are acceptable to both parties.
3. As regards the “indicative frontier line” referred to in the General Plan for the zoning of
Preah Vihear, it would be preferable to remove this from the plan. If Cambodia insists on keeping
it, Thailand would have no option but to enter a reservation against that reference in the final
resolution inscribing this site on the UNESCO World Heritage List.
___________
ANNEX 28
Agreed Minutes of the First Discussion of the Cambodian-Thai
Technical Officers, 29-30 September 2003
ANNEX 29
Agreed Minutes of the Second Discussion of the Cambodian-Thai
Technical Officers, 4-5 February 2004
ANNEX 30
Agreed Minutes of the Third Discussion of the Cambodian-Thai
Technical Officers, 30 June-2 July 2004
ANNEX 31
“Joint communiqué” of 18 June 2008 signed by the Governments of
Cambodia and Thailand and UNESCO
ANNEX 32
Decision of the 32nd session of the World Heritage Committee in 2008
ANNEX 33
MCOT press release of 8 July 2008, “Thai Court rules Thai-Cambodian
communiqué in breach of charter”
ANNEX 34
Letter of 19 July 2008 sent to the President of the United Nations General Assembly
by the Permanent Mission of Cambodia to the United Nations
ANNEX 35
Letter of 18 July 2008 sent to the President of the United Nations Security Council
by the Permanent Mission of Cambodia to the United Nations
ANNEX 36
Letter of 21 July 2008 sent to the President of the United Nations Security Council
by the Permanent Mission of Thailand to the United Nations
ANNEX 37
Attestation by the Agent of the Kingdom of Cambodia
ANNEX 37
Attestation by the Agent of the Kingdom of Cambodia
[Translation]
ATTESTATION
I hereby certify the accuracy of the French translations used by Cambodia in the annexes to
the Response. I also certify that the annexed documents are authentic and faithful copies of the
original documents.
Mr. HOR Namhong,
Agent of the Kingdom of Cambodia.
___________
Volume II, annexes