Thailand Demands Independent Probe Into Military Use of Preah Vihear
Thailand is demanding an independent investigation into alleged Cambodian military operations around the Preah Vihear temple, presenting aerial imagery and weapons coordinates while arguing that World Heritage status cannot shield military
Bangkok — Thailand has called for an independent examination of evidence it says shows Cambodian troops using the area around Preah Vihear temple as a military position, stressing that World Heritage status should not be used as a shield for military operations.
Air Chief Marshal Praphas Sonchaidee, assistant commander-in-chief of the Royal Thai Air Force and director of the Joint Information Center (JIC) on the Thailand-Cambodia situation, said Saturday that Thailand had evidence indicating Cambodian forces had used the temple area as a military stronghold.
He said Thailand's position was based on the principle that using World Heritage sites for military purposes is an important issue under international law.
The evidence presented by Thailand includes aerial images, coordinates and photographs of weapons allegedly located in the area, including RPG anti-tank weapons, small arms and positions for anti-aircraft weapons.
Praphas said Thailand wanted the evidence to be independently verified rather than having either side's allegations accepted without examination.
The JIC director said Thailand had information indicating that the area had been used for military activities, along with allegations that weapons had been fired from the area at Thai forces.
Thailand is prepared to provide coordinates, timestamps, photographs and other supporting information so the claims can be assessed against the facts, he said.
Asked whether the use of Preah Vihear as a military base would automatically remove the temple's protection as a cultural heritage site, Praphas said it would be inaccurate to say that protection would automatically cease.
He said international law contains more detailed requirements, citing the 1954 Hague Convention, which calls for cultural property and its immediate surroundings to be protected from uses that could expose them to destruction or damage during armed conflict.
Asked whether Thailand would have the right to retaliate if weapons were fired from a World Heritage site, Praphas said any response would have to be assessed based on the facts and applicable law at the time.
The mere presence of troops or weapons at a protected site would not automatically justify an attack, he said.
Under the rules governing the protection of cultural property, authorities must consider whether the site has become a military objective, whether alternative options are available and what feasible measures can be taken to minimise damage to cultural heritage.
These principles are set out in the 1999 Second Protocol to the Hague Convention, including provisions concerning imperative military necessity and precautions in attack.
On who should be held responsible for damage to the temple, Praphas said a full timeline would need to be established, including who deployed troops and weapons to the area, who used weapons, from which positions and at what time, as well as the objectives of any responding force.
