by Prach Panchakunathorn

The PAD staged a protest outside the UNESCO office in Bangkok today. The Nation and Matichon report that about 1,000 attended while the Bangkok Post says the number was in the hundreds. The PAD leaders present at the protest included Maj-Gen Chamlong Srimuang, Chaiwat Sinsuwongse, actor Sarunyu “Tua” Wongkrajang and ML Walwipa Charoonroj (also director of the Centre for Thai Studies, Thammasart University).

Significantly, Matichon reports:

At 14.40 Abhisit invited top PAD leaders to the Phisanulok Mansion (PM’s house). The PAD leaders included Parnthep Puapongpan (PAD spokesman), Kamnoon Sithisaman (appointed senator), Pipop Thongchai and ML Walwipa Charoonroj. Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya … and Sirichok Sopa [MP and Mr Abhisit's close aide: PP] were also present. The meeting lasted for two hours.

PP: The fact that Abhisit invited PAD leaders to his house suggests, if anything, that the PAD still have considerable influence over Abhisit. And this may make one doubt whether Abhisit’s promise to ensure fair legal actions against both the Yellow Shirts and the Red Shirts is realistic. By the way, the Bangkok Post said Chamlong “threatened to unseat Abhisit if he failed to protect Thailand’s sovereignty”. Would Chamlong not unseat him then if he escalated the PAD’s cases over the airport and government house seizures?

So how far do Abhisit and the PAD disagree, if at all, over Thailand’s appropriate actions? Sourcing from Matichon and Thairath, I summarise their points of agreement and disagreement as follows:

Both Abhisit and the PAD agreed that the border must run along the line of the river bed. They also agree that the government must try to push Cambodians out of the disputed area. But Abhisit and the PAD disagree mainly on three issues. Firstly, while the PAD demanded a military action to push Cambodian civilians, monks and soldiers in the area, Abhisit prefered to negotiate them out. Secondly, the PAD wanted an end to the Thai-Cambodia MOU (memorandum of understanding), because the MOU “turned a Thai territory into a disputed territory”. But Abhisit thought that the MOU turned a territory that Cambodia thought to belong to them, to become a disputed territory. Thirdly, the PAD wanted the government to boycott the World Heritage Centre Committee meeting in Brazil, because attending the meeting would signify that Thailand accepted the listing of Preah Vihear as a world heritage site, and only disagreed with the temple’s management plan.

PP: I wonder where Kasit, who was also in the meeting, stood in these disagreements. Did he back Abhisit the whole way, or did he also push the PAD’s agendas?

By the way, according to the Bangkok Post, Abhisit was “reported to have said that although Thailand accepted a 1962 ruling by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) that handed ownership of the temple to Cambodia, it maintained its right to withhold recognition of the 1904 French colonial map upon which the ruling was based”.

PP: Isn’t this an indirect way of rejecting the ICJ ruling? Surely, to reject the basis of a ruling implies rejecting the ruling. Or does Abhisit mean that the government would “disagree” with the ICJ ruling (i.e. say that it is baseless) but would still “accept” it (i.e. accept the authority of the ICJ while disagreeing with it).