(Photo: Visitors to the prison-turned-museum look at photos of the prisoners of the S-21 detention center. S-21 was discovered by Vietnamese troops in January 1979. About 16,000 people are estimated to have been killed there. 10 December 2008. By Isabelle Roughol)

By Isabelle Roughol

From the jungles of Kompong Cham province to the living room of a royal residence, Cambodians who could get their hands on a radio in January 1979 listened attentively for news of a military advance against the Khmer Rouge in Eastern Cambodia. Vietnamese troops with a small contingent of Cambodians—the United Front for the National Salvation of Kampuchea, mostly disaffected Khmer Rouge soldiers who had only recently fled internal purges—launched an attack on Christmas Day 1978 and were rapidly making their way through eastern Cambodia.

Khieu Kanharith, now Minister of Information, was in a youth brigade in Kampong Cham and in charge of listening to radio broadcasts and making daily reports to the head of the labor camp, he said. Distant broadcasters told him of the front’s creation in early December and of the troops’ advance until he himself could hear the cannons.

“On 7 January, the Khmer Rouge radio went silent. On the morning of 8 January, I heard from [Voice of America] that Phnom Penh fall,” he said.

In Phnom Penh too, foreign radio brought news of the Vietnamese advance.

“And it is thanks to these radio broadcasts that I am aware of the situation of our country: creation of the front of HE Heng Samrin [who led the UFNSK] and ‘liberation’ of wide swaths of the Cambodian national territory, in the South, South East, South West,” wrote Retired King Norodom Sihanouk in notes published on his Web site in December 2006.

“My son (the future King) N Sihamoni and I exchange in silence and with a wide smile of hope and joy the birth and expansion of the liberation front presided by HE Heng Samrin.”

Sihanouk did not get to see Phnom Penh’s fall as with the thunder of cannons approaching, he was put on a plane to China the previous night.

On Jan 7, 1979, the Vietnamese and Khmer rebel troops entered a deserted Phnom Penh without encountering much resistance. They arrived in a desolate city that had been emptied of its residents since the Khmer Rouge’s takeover on April 17, 1975. The few leaders and workers that remained in the capital under the Khmer Rouge’s reign had left hurriedly. In his book “Brother Enemy,” Nayan Chanda describes banquets meant to celebrate a Khmer Rouge victory left to rot away as the famished workers who were about to eat them were forced to evacuate.

Photos of the time show a ghost town with trash piled up in the streets the only sign there might have been humans there. Garbage was thrown behind roadblocks on secondary roads, according to Khieu Kanharith, who said he entered Phnom Penh about two weeks after the Khmer Rouge left it. Other streets were used as storage space, he said: plates and silverware were piled neatly in front of the current Ministry of Health on Kampuchea Krom Boulevard.

“And if you want to have clothes, it’s another area. If you want to have rice, it’s [the] Old Market,” Khieu Kanharith recalled.

“Very clean, very in order,” he added.

Things weren’t so orderly outside the city; thousands of former city dwellers had converged toward Phnom Penh but were kept out of the city. Vietnamese troops blocked the way and only those hired by the newly installed administration of the People’s Republic of Kampuchea could enter the capital.

Turn Saray, now ADHOC president and then a young father, made the perilous journey to the city with his family aboard a small boat, pausing along the way to earn their daily rice and avoid remaining pockets of Khmer Rouge. They were not allowed in the city, and outside Phnom Penh, he said, the atmosphere was that of a refugee camp, with too little food, water and medicine.

“I slept on the ground for a few months because there were not enough houses. My entire family slept on the ground,” he said.

Getting regular income was difficult, but at least, unlike under the Khmer Rouge, families were now free to be entrepreneurial to survive, he said. He earned his family’s rice by transporting people on his boat, bartering and taking a collection of odd jobs.

For Turn Saray, January 7 is not only the liberation of Phnom Penh; it’s the day of his personal liberation. Forced to accompany Khmer Rouge soldiers in their retreat through the forests of northern Kratie province, his family did their best to lag behind, under the pretense that the children and elderly could not follow and in the hope Vietnamese troops could catch up and liberate them. They did. Others, in the tens of thousands, were forced to accompany their captors to the Northwest, eventually landing in refugee camps along the Thai border.

“January 7, to me and my family, signifies a liberation, the day of liberation from the atrocity of the Khmer Rouge. But seeing many Vietnamese troops, we also had the feeling that our country would be dominated by Vietnam,” Turn Saray said, adding that nonetheless, joy overcame fear.

Pen Sovann, one of the founders of the front, a former prime minister in the 1980s and now an HRP member, said Cambodian rebels alone were not strong enough to topple the Khmer Rouge and needed Vietnamese help.

“The agreement was to establish friendships for mutual understanding, not to abuse the border, not to interfere with each other,” he said of a treaty between the PRK and Vietnam signed Feb 18, 1979.

“But on the contrary after the liberation, they abused the territory and they wanted this part and that part of Cambodia…. They wanted to colonize us and to control us,” he added. The Vietnamese troops remained in the country until 1989.

The significance of Jan 7, 1979—the symbolic date of both the fall of Cambodia’s most cruel regime and the onset of a decade of foreign occupation—remains a point of contention 30 years later.

Prime Minister Hun Sen, then 26, was part of the Cambodian front that ousted the Khmer Rouge, and the government, political heir of Jan 7, made the date a national holiday.

“January 7 was a historical day. It gave us a new birthday, and I want everyone to remember it in their hearts,” said CPP lawmaker Cheam Yeap.

This year, the 30^th anniversary will be celebrated with a rally expected to bring 20,000 students to Olympic Stadium. That drew the ire of opposition leaders who say there is too much ambivalence about the date to make it a day of national celebration. They prefer the anniversary of the signing of the Paris Peace Accords on Oct 23, 1991, which is not a national holiday anymore.

“April 17 [1975] and January 7 [1979] are inextricably associated: both of them are communist Frankensteins. Celebrating January 7 without having in mind a broader historical perspective, is playing into the hands of the current Phnom Penh regime whose only raison d’etre was to ‘free’ the Cambodian people from the Khmer Rouge with communist Vietnam’s decisive but not unselfish help,” SRP President Sam Rainsy wrote in an e-mail.

Even 30 years after the fact, one’s position in the “liberation v invasion” debate is a quick identifier of their political alliances.

NRP spokesman Suth Dina once vehemently opposed the anniversary as former president of the Khmer Front Party. Now the NRP has realigned with the government, Suth Dina said he and the party would no longer oppose the national holiday.

“The overthrow of the Khmer Rouge regime and the assumption of control of Cambodia by the Vietnamese in support of their Cambodian protégés is a notably ambiguous issue,” historian Milton Osborne noted in an e-mail. “Deciding where an observer stands on that issue determines how one describes what took place, and its significance.”

Additional reporting by Yun Samean

(Photo: A young girl holds on to her father, who has packed and is ready to join the army, at a Cambodian military base in Oddar Meanchey province. He was one of too few who volunteered; in order to reach recruitment targets, local authorities forced others to enroll.)

By Isabelle Roughol and Eang Mengleng

Kok Morn commune, Oddar Meanchey province – Villagers in Oddar Meanchey province say they are being forced to join the army to meet recruitment demands set by the military.

Government and RCAF officials, however, say they are in no way endorsing such a recruitment process, which appears to be illegal.

An Oct 17 order from RCAF Commander-in-Chief Ke Kim Yan requested local officials to find 1,100 new soldiers in the province, though it does not say whether the men should be volunteers or draftees. Failing to find enough volunteers, at least one commune — Kok Morn in Banteay Ampil district — organized a lottery to select young men to be enrolled in the army, whether they wish it or not.

“It is illegal as far as I know to select soldiers [this way,] but I am a lower official so I have to do or obey the order from high officials,” Kok Morn commune chief Ourn Vy said by telephone Monday.

The commune found 12 volunteers but had been asked in a meeting with RCAF district and provincial commanders to find a total of 35, said Ourn Vy. A lottery was organized to pick 15 young men in each of the commune’s 18 villages, and a second lottery round on Oct 31 picked 23 of those men to join the RCAF, he said in an interview at his home Sunday.

“They needed soldiers in my commune so I started to select them by volunteering or by drawing a lottery,” he said.

The 12 volunteers and 23 draftees will be sent to RCAF district headquarters for training by Jan 31, Ourn Vy said. Ke Kim Yan’s order requests two more waves of recruits to join the military by April 30 and July 31, and more lotteries are likely to be organized, Ourn Vy added.

The men had no choice but to participate in the lottery, and if any of the 23 selected refuse to go, they will have to be forced, said Kok Morn commune clerk Vant Soth. Though villagers were clearly unhappy, none had yet lodged an official complaint, he added in an interview at his home Saturday.

However, Banteay Ampil district deputy RCAF commander Ou Sareun said he did not order commune officials to organize the obligatory lottery, and that the RCAF district headquarters would simply receive new recruits as they arrive according to Ke Kim Yan’s order.

Provincial Deputy Governor Yim Than said authorities were only planning to form militias at present, and that there was no plan at the provincial level to recruit soldiers.

Minister of Information Khieu Kanharith said the government did wish to recruit soldiers but not by force and that he could not confirm or deny the forced recruitment was taking place because he had not received any complaints.

“We cannot force the people to be in the army,” Khieu Kanharith said by telephone Monday, adding the conscription law passed in 2006 cannot be used to recruit soldiers because the government has not yet issued a sub-decree.

“If they are really forced to be in the army, they can complain to human rights organizations or to the UN or to the government office or to the members of the National Assembly representing them,” he added.

Minister of Defense Tea Banh declined to comment on the recruitment process.

Villagers involved in the lottery process said they feel helpless and confused.

“It is not fair at all,” said Lor Sinny, a 23-year-old farmer in Sing village, who is one of the young men selected. The father of one and only son to a widowed mother, Lor Sinny said he would prefer staying home to tend to the family’s two hectares.

Lamenting over his poor luck in the lottery, he wondered why only a few were forced to serve.

“I want all the youths aged 18 to 30 years old to go because it is our country, not just my country,” he said in an interview at his home Sunday.

Khum Oeum, a widow and mother of a 21-year-old selectee who also does not wish to become a soldier, said her son returned from the lottery meeting with the impression that there was no way out. She said she was not aware of any possibility to appeal the decision.

Khum Oeum expressed particular concern because her son, who works on construction sites, is the primary breadwinner for the family

“He runs the family like a father to feed his brothers and sisters,” Khum Oeum said, adding her other children might have to drop out of school when their older brother leaves.

(Photo: The Cambodian flag flies over the Preah Vihear temple, at the center of a border dispute with Thailand. 7 November 2008. By Isabelle Roughol)

By Isabelle Roughol

A border left ill-defined by a century-old French treaty lead to armed clashes between Thailand and one of its neighbors, killing 1,000 people on both sides.

The scenario may sound eerily similar to the current standoff between Thailand and Cambodia, but the fight in question took place in the 1980s, when Thailand and Laos had their own bloody dispute over a contested piece of border territory.

After sporadic fighting in 1980 and again in 1984 over three border villages that both countries claimed, the Thai and Lao armies engaged in a contained battle from December 1987 to February 1988.

Thailand’s disagreement with Laos over the small disputed area in Laos’ Xainyaburi province stemmed from different interpretations of the same early 20th century border treaties, especially the 1907 French-Siam convention that used natural watersheds to delimit the borders between the Siam kingdom and France’s Indochina. These are the same treaties that Thailand is today disputing with Cambodia over territory around Preah Vihear temple.

Thailand didn’t negate the 1907 treaties, but argued over which Mekong tributary actually formed the border between with Laos, wrote Ronald Bruce St John in “The Land Boundaries of Indochina,” which was published in 1998 by the International Boundaries Research Unit.

Corruption also played its part in the 1987 hostilities, claimed Robert Karniol, a defense analyst writing for Singapore’s Straits Times newspaper.

“Basically, a Thai company was harvesting timber in this area, having facilitated this by paying off both Thai and Laos army personnel. The fighting flared when the company, on Thai army advice, stopped paying the Laotians. It ended when they started paying again,” Karniol wrote in an e-mail.

After the fighting, and the 1,000 casualties, the border returned to a status quo with Thailand and Laos later forming a joint commission to demarcate the border, whose work is apparently nearing completion 20 years later.

But the short conflict was militarily significant as Laotian forces proved stronger than expected, Karniol added.

“[T]he fighting soon deteriorated into a stalemate as heavily favored Thai forces failed to push a dogged Laotian defense off Hill 1428,” St John wrote. “It was only after suffering combined casualties of more than 1,000 troops that Thailand and Laos agreed to a cease-fire,” he said.

Laotian troops were battle-hardened by years of fighting anti-communist forces and were well supplied by their Vietnamese allies, said Tim Huxley, executive director of the International Institute of Strategic Studies-Asia based in Singapore. On the other hand, Thai forces were well equipped but poorly led, as “constant politicking in Bangkok” distracted senior officers, he wrote in an e-mail.

The conflict ended when it had escalated to such a degree that the only way out for both sides was a full-scale war, Karniol said. Fortunately, Thailand chose to cool down the confrontation, and though the border with Lao has remained a touchy subject, tensions subsided as Thailand’s economic investment in Laos grew in the following years.

Similarities regarding the political and historical circumstances of the Thai-Lao clash, known as the Baan Rom Klao conflict, and the current dispute between Thailand and Cambodia are striking, but that’s where the likeness ends.

The Baan Rom Klao conflict unfolded in a world where East and West were still a relevant distinction. Allies of both countries, the West and Eastern bloc, played a role they are unlikely to play today if the conflict near Preah Vihear temple escalates.

Vietnam equipped and trained Laotian forces and also frequently clashed with Thai forces in the 1980s on the Thai-Cambodian border, following its occupation of Cambodia after the ouster of the Khmer Rouge regime in 1979, Huxley said.

News reports of the time recount Thailand accusing Laos of having brought in fighters from fellow communist state Cuba, though Vientiane denied it at the time.

“[C]ontemporary Cambodia is neither as well-armed as Vietnam was by the Soviet Union during the 1980s, and unlike Laos in the late 1980s it does not have Vietnamese support,” Huxley added.

Thailand, on the other hand, has enjoyed decades of military cooperation with the US.

But the international community appears to be steering clear of Thailand’s current dispute with Cambodia, at least as far as the public can see.

Foreign governments have at best expressed concern and urged for peaceful bilateral resolution though Cambodia has on several occasions threatened to take the issue to the UN, without consequences.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in an Oct 15 statement after fighting killed three Cambodian soldiers at the border called for bilateral talks only.

In Asean, Malaysia voiced concern, but Foreign Minister Rais Yatim said Wednesday that his country would not intervene or play a mediator role in the dispute, according to Malaysian national news agency Bernama.

So far, Cambodia and Thailand stand alone, face to face.

“There might be some comparison drawn with the Baan Rom Klao conflict in the sense that a minor scuffle can threaten to escalate into a larger conflict,” Karniol said of the current Thai-Cambodia standoff.

“But, ultimately, cooler heads prevailed then and are likely to prevail now,” he said.

Qian Hai, spokesman of the Chinese Embassy in Phnom Penh, expressed a similar sentiment.

“They’re both our good friends [Cambodia and Thailand],” Qian Hai said by telephone Thursday.

“They can settle down their dispute through negotiations, we hope,” he added.

(Photo: The Preah Vihear temple, center of a border dispute between Thailand and Cambodia. 7 November 2008. By Isabelle Roughol)

By Isabelle Roughol

While officials on both sides insist that tension that rose Wednesday around the Preah Vihear temple has eased up, the incident left an impression of déjà-vu: as opposition to the government mounts in Bangkok, so does the pressure at the border.

The 4.6 square kilometers of disputed land near the Preah Vihear temple had been quiet for weeks when, according to Cambodian officials, about 100 fully armed Thai soldiers crossed there Wednesday afternoon and were met by Cambodian soldiers. Negotiations ensued and the Thai soldiers pulled back a few hours later.

Meanwhile in Bangkok on Thursday, thousands of “red shirt” opposition supporters marched to Government House aiming to oust the government of Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva, and his Foreign Affairs Minister, Kasit Piromya.

The tables were turned late last year: with the yellow-shirted People’s Alliance for Democracy, Kasit was once of those stirring nationalistic sentiment, accusing the government of giving up the temple. Later, his appointment as the fourth foreign minister to handle the 10-month border dispute was criticized, as opponents thought he had been too cavalier in criticizing Cambodia.

Now, apparently unable to please either way, he stands accused of being too lenient on Cambodia, for not stopping the construction of a Cambodian road to the temple, that red-shirts say took away 250 meters of Thai territory. He withstood a censure motion in Parliament last week, but only by the narrowest margin of any government minister.

Cambodian officials, irritated by the slowness of negotiations, have on several occasions blamed it on the interference of Thai domestic politics. And Thai observers aren’t fooled either: an editorial in The Nation newspaper on Thursday called on the “red shirts” not to use the same methods that had been used against them.

“[They] should not repeat this mistake because it would not bring any good to the country, only problems and trouble,” the article read.

The Thai-Cambodian Joint Border Commission is scheduled to again discuss the boundary demarcation on April 6 and 7 in Phnom Penh. Such negotiations have too coincided in the past with rhetorical escalations and agitation of troops.

The message coming Thursday from the Thai military, through deputy spokesman Colonel Werachon Sukondhapatipak, was one of reassurance.

“We have a policy that we do not do anything that could be perceived as provocative,” he said by telephone from Bangkok. “We want to avoid any misunderstanding.”

“If this is the case, that there is a movement [of troops at Preah Vihear], then it is only a rotation. There is no order to increase troop numbers at the border,” he added.

Thani Thongpakdi, deputy spokesman of the Thai Foreign Affairs Ministry, said the troops had been moving within the borders of Thailand. Because the area has yet to be demarcated, both countries occasionally accuse each other of encroaching. Thani also said the reported figure of 100 soldiers was exaggerated.

At the temple, Preah Vihear Authority secretary-general Hang Soth said villagers had moved to the temple for fear of the Thai troops.

“They moved to a safe place because they were afraid an incident might occur at any time,” he said.

(Additional reporting by Eang Mengleng)

(Photo: Thai soldiers in the jungle of the disputed border area with Cambodia. 7 November 2008. By Isabelle Roughol)

By Isabelle Roughol

Opposition party leader Sam Rainsy warmly welcomed the election of new Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva in a letter of congratulation on Tuesday to the leader of Thailand’s Democrat Party, the SRP’s political brethren in a coalition of Asian liberal parties.

Sam Rainsy expressed his trust and confidence in the new Thai premier-the third in four months-and his ability to restore stability in Thailand, after weeks of protests that also delayed the resolution of the country’s border dispute with Cambodia.

“It is also my strong belief and hope that your vision for regional harmony will see peaceful solutions and the strengthening of economic and cultural ties that will bring mutual progress and prosperity to our peoples,” Sam Rainsy wrote, also praising Abhisit’s commitment to fighting corruption and protecting democracy.

But Abhisit is also the man who led the charge against former Thai Prime Minister Samak Sundarajev in a no-confidence debate in the Thai parliament last June when he accused Samak of endangering Thai sovereignty by conceding to Cambodia’s bid to list the Preah Vihear temple as a Unesco World Heritage site.

Abhisit branded Samak’s support for the UNESCO listing as a loss of Thai territory to Cambodia.

Soon after, opposition protesters branding themselves as true Thai nationalists showed up at Preah Vihear temple, a move that was soon followed by armed Thai troops marching crossing the undemarcated border in July, and starting an armed standoff that is still playing out to this day.

“We always welcome anyone elected directly or indirectly by their own people,” Council of Ministers spokesman Phay Siphan said on Wednesday when asked to comment on Abhisit’s election. Phay Siphan said he welcomed any development that brought stability to Thailand.

Asked to comment on concerns that Abhisit could take a tougher stance in negotiations over the border at Preah Vihear, Phay Siphan said the legal framework for talks was already in place and negotiations with the new government would be based on a memorandum of understanding signed in 2000.

“They opposed each other back in Bangkok; they did not oppose us,” he added.

Now that they are in government, Abhisit’s Democrats Party has less interest in stirring up a dispute with Cambodia, said John Virgoe, Southeast Asia project director for the International Crisis Group.

“It was a useful stick with which to beat the Samak government, accusing them of lack of patriotism. But I can’t see who would benefit politically by keeping this [border] issue alive, Virgoe wrote in an e-mail from Jakarta.

“I imagine the new government will support the Thai foreign ministry’s efforts to resolve the dispute,” he wrote.

Though stating that he could not speak on the new Thai premier’s politics, Virachai Plasai, the lead lawyer for the Thai foreign ministry in the border talks with Cambodia, said Abhisit had shown support in Parliament for the negotiating framework the legislature has approved.

Thai Democrat Party spokesman Buranaj Smutharaks, however, declined to say what Abhisit’s stance on the border dispute would be.

“We don’t have a foreign policy yet because we have to submit to the parliament first,” he added.

With supporters of the former government already protesting Abhisit’s election, and at least three more Thai parliamentary approvals to go before the border dispute can be tackled and possibly settled, it’s anyone’s guess if Abhisit’s will be the government to end the border dispute.

As Virgoe wrote, “it’s a bit early to predict that this government will be around for long.”

(Photo: A door of the Preah Vihear temple. 7 November 2008. By Isabelle Roughol)

By Isabelle Roughol

Thailand cleared the last constitutional hurdles to holding border talks with Cambodia over the Preah Vihear temple, but differences resurfaced Thursday over the minutiae of international treaties and maps delineating the border, hinting at a long and protracted negotiation process.

Thailand’s parliament gave a mandate to the government of Prime Minister Somchai Wongsawat late Tuesday to negotiate border issues with Cambodia, both in the short term to resolve a months-long military standoff near the Preah Vihear temple, and in the long term to demarcate the contested border.

“I feel hopeful and bulletproof at the same time,” said Virachai Plasai, director of the Treaties and Legal Affairs Department at the Thai Foreign Affairs Ministry.

“Hopeful on the international plane, meaning we should be able to make some progress, and bullet-proof on the internal plane,” because parliament approved the mandate with an overwhelming majority, he said by telephone Thursday from Bangkok.

Thailand had previously argued that under its constitution, it could not commit to any deal with Cambodia without approval from the legislature. The way is now clear for the work of the Joint Boundary Commission, which is set to commence talks Nov 10 to 14.

“I’m ready to negotiate,” Virachai said, adding he would offer to his Cambodian counterparts to visit Phnom Penh before Nov 10 to best prepare the talks.

But, he added, negotiating won’t be easy work as both sides disagree on what documents to work from regarding the border’s demarcation.

Cambodia uses a map based on demarcations completed a century ago by France, which places Preah Vihear temple and the disputed area of Veal Entry, or Eagle Field, firmly inside Cambodia. The International Court of Justice used that map in 1962 when it ruled that the Preah Vihear temple belonged to Cambodia.

Phay Siphan, spokesman of the Council of Ministers in Phnom Penh, said the map “we’ve been using is 100 years old, and international organizations recognize that.”

Thailand four times did not object to the map, Phay Siphan added: in a French-Siam treaty in 1937, another in 1946, in the ICJ decision of 1962 and the memorandum of agreement signed between Thailand and Cambodia in 2000.

“We’re not forcing the Thais to obey the demarcations of the map, but they already signed it,” Phay Siphan said.

Virachai, however, said Thursday that Cambodia’s French-drawn map was irrelevant.

“Both sides can bring any map to the table [based on the 2000 MOU]. If the Cambodian side wants to bring that map to the table, we cannot prevent that. But we will not bring it to the table because we believe it is not relevant,” Virachai said.

“We will not accept this map as representing a legally binding boundary,” he said.

Virachai also said that Thailand would abide by the ICJ decision, but that it applied only to the temple, and not the border. Negotiations, Virachai said, could take years to resolve, noting that talks with Laos on a dispute border area, which both countries fought a war over, were now entering their second decade.

“Look at the Laotians, at the spot where we fought a war in 1987,” Virachai said. “Hundreds of deaths at the time, and we’re still negotiating.”

(Photo: The collapsed inner sanctuary of the Preah Vihear temple at dusk. 7 November 2009. By Isabelle Roughol)

By Isabelle Roughol

Thailand has “categorically” denied responsibility for the damage inflicted to Preah Vihear temple during the Oct 15 military clash with Cambodian troops, saying in a statement that Thai troops did not fire the grenades that chipped a naga statue and a staircase.

Cambodia lodged a complaint last week with Unesco accusing Thai forces of firing M-79 rifle-launched grenades during the fighting, at least two of which landed just a few meters from the temple causing very minor superficial damage to stonework.

Shrapnel recovered from the impact sites showed that the munitions were M-79 shells and the angle of trajectory, Cambodian officials said, proved that they could only have been fired from the Thai frontlines.

“In accordance with strict orders, Thai troops have not used heavy firearms or rocket launchers near the Temple of Pra Viharn and never fired at the Temple,” the Thai Foreign Ministry said in a statement dated Sunday. Phra Viharn is the name Thais use to refer to the Preah Vihear temple.

“Thai soldiers being fired upon by Cambodian troops…used only rifles in self-defense,” the statement added.

Cambodian troops, however, fired rockets that landed within Thailand’s Phra Viharn National Park, injuring two Thai soldiers, the ministry statement claimed, adding Thailand has kept two unexploded Cambodian rockets as evidence.

Thai Foreign Affairs Ministry spokesman Tharit Charungvat added by telephone Monday that it was Cambodian troops, and not Thai soldiers, who were responsible for endangering the temple.

“I would rather say that it has been the Cambodian side who militarized the Phra Viharn temple, whereby they put hundreds of forces-if not thousands-and heavy artillery around the area, which is against Unesco criteria,” he said.

“[Cambodians] held the Preah Vihear temple as an hostage so to speak,” he added.

Cambodian Council of Ministers spokesman Phay Siphan said Monday that he had grown accustomed to hearing Thailand’s excuses and claims of innocence.

“You see that the Thais [are] on the side to deny everything: they deny deployment of military on Cambodian territory; they deny everything but look at the facts,” Phay Siphan said by telephone.

Cambodian forces had used B-40, B-41 and B-42 rocket-propelled grenades, which are not powerful enough to cause the damage that was inflicted on the temple’s stonework, which, he added, was caused by a Thai M-79 grenade.

“[It's] scratch damage, it’s not heavier damage, but as the Cambodian side, we have to pay attention much because the temple is World Heritage, it belongs to everybody,” Phay Siphan said.

“We have to protect it…. [Thailand] is a signatory, too. They should not fire on [the temple]. They should not try to force armed provocation in that area,” he added.

The chairman of Thailand’s World Heritage Committee, Pongpol Adireksarn, told The Nation newspaper in Bangkok on Monday that he was concerned Cambodia had made a request to UNESCO to name Preah Vihear temple as “a risky area.”

World Heritages Sites listed as endangered can receive additional funding from Unesco, as well as a possible surge in global media attention, according to the World Heritage Center’s Web site.

Sites on the List of World Heritage in Danger include Afghanistan’s Bamiyan Valley, where the Taliban dynamited two giant Buddha statues, and national parks in Congo, where war threatens natural riches.

Giovanni Boccardi, chief of the East Asia and Pacific unit at the World Heritage Center, said earlier in the month that Preah Vihear could be placed on the danger list without a request from the Cambodian government.

“The possible danger listing of Preah Vihear would have to be decided by the World Heritage Committee, based on information provided by the Secretariat and having consulted the State party of Cambodia,” Boccardi said.

“The latter could indeed request such inscription to the Committee, but this is not a precondition,” he wrote in an e-mail.

Tharit Charungvat said that Thailand was ready to prove its innocence in the damage done to the temple.

“It’s up to the Cambodian side, but we are ready to show evidence and give solid explanation to any party” he said.

(Photo: Razorwire lines the Cambodian side of the border with Thailand, where the only gate has been closed since July 15, 2008. 7 November 2008. By Isabelle Roughol)

By Isabelle Roughol

Amid accusations from Thailand that Cambodian forces recently placed antipersonnel mines at the border near Preah Vihear temple, an international mine expert said that such a scenario could not be ruled out, though it was unlikely.

The Thai government believes the two mines that injured two Thai soldiers on Oct 6 had been recently placed there by RCAF troops.

In a Friday statement, the Thai Ministry of Foreign Affairs urged Cambodia to investigate a possible violation of the Ottawa Convention banning antipersonnel landmines, which both Thailand and Cambodia have signed.

The Bangkok Post reported Friday that Thailand would take its findings to the UN.

Cambodia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs responded to the allegations of mine laying stating that in accordance with the Ottawa Convention, Cambodia destroyed all its landmine stockpiles and the mines in the border area “are remnants of almost three decades of war.”

Heng Ratana, deputy director general of the Cambodian Mine Action Center, said on Monday that just in the 100-meter buffer zone cleared around Preah Vihear temple, CMAC found 9,000 landmine pieces. The area, he said, was constantly mined from 1972 to 1998.

“I think that claim is groundless…. Why do you need to mine more there?” he asked.

Thai mine experts found two unexploded mines near the site of the Oct 6 explosions and identified one as a PMN-2 type, the Thai Foreign Ministry said in another statement.

The PMN-2, known as the “black widow” for its destructive power, is a Soviet-made mine triggered by pressure.

Andy Smith, a British mine clearance specialist who has worked in Cambodia, said that finding a “black widow” should not be considered unusual, while Heng Ratana confirmed that PMN-2 mines were found during CMAC’s demining operations around the temple.

“The PMN-2 is one of the most common mines used in Cambodia-with the Soviet forces importing an unknown (but huge) number,” Smith said.

“Politically, [relaying mines] would be a mad decision, but soldiers on the ground struggling to patrol a disputed border might have taken the law into their own hands and used a cache that they had found,” Smith said in an email Monday.

“I think this unlikely, but possible,” he added.

Smith and Rupert Leighton, Mines Advisory Group’s Cambodia country program manager, both said that even with two of the suspected mines now under analysis in Bangkok, there would be little firm evidence gained to support claims of re-laying.

“A PMN-2 mine can appear to be new when it’s been in the ground for 20 years,” Leighton said by telephone Monday.

In the absence of firm evidence of wrongdoing, Smith said it was more likely that even if the area had been cleared, some mines could have been missed.

“The odds of safely walking over an area that contains a few mines are high,” Smith wrote.

“The more times you cross in different places, the greater the likelihood of ‘finding’ one of the missed mines,” he added.

To supports it claims of newly laid mines, Thailand issued a statement which referenced a 2002 report from the Cambodian government to the UN in which it is stated that 240 PMN-2 landmines — out of a total stockpile of 3,405 — were transferred from the Ministry of Interior in Phnom Penh to CMAC for “development and training.”

Thailand has asked Cambodia to investigate the fate of those remaining mines.

However, what the Thai statement failed to include from Cambodia’s 2002 report to the UN is that the PMN-2’s not sent to CMAC for training, were sent to CMAC for destruction.

Every year, some mines uncovered by police and military are spared from destruction and retained for training and research purposes, as is permitted under article 3 of the Ottawa Convention.

Since 1993, Cambodian authorities have transferred 3,673 mines to demining organizations for such purposes, according to reports sent by the government to the UN.

Heng Ratana, however, said that such mines, even though they have been retained, are deactivated before transport and are therefore harmless.

“We don’t train on the real stuff.”

(Photo: The 3rd gopura of Preah Vihear temple at sunset, Cambodia. 7 November 2008. By Isabelle Roughol)

By Isabelle Roughol

With Thailand lingering in its political miasma and Cambodia’s military far from keeping up with its neighbor, neither side seems likely to want to engage in a full-blown conflict at the border, defense analysts say.

“I’d expect that things will calm down before too long,” said Robert Karniol, a defense analyst who writes for Singapore’s Straits Times. “The potential fly in the ointment is whether either side sees domestic political advantage in keeping tensions high. Another concern is that minor incidents can flare into a more significant confrontation due to emotional pressures.”

The Thai armed forces dwarf those of Cambodia. A 2008 report from the International Institute of Strategic Studies numbers Cambodian land forces at 75,000, whereas Thailand has 190,000 active soldiers, plus tens of thousands of reservists.

“Basically, on paper, Thailand is much stronger militarily than Cambodia,” said Tim Huxley, executive director of the IISS-Asia, adding that Cambodia’s annual defense budget is about $140 million and Thailand’s is 25 times that-$3.5 billion.

Thailand also enjoys a 46,000-strong air force with 165 combat capable aircraft and 47 helicopters, whereas half of Cambodia’s squadron of 19 MIGs is reported to need upgrades and the country keeps just 18 helicopters.

“One thing the Cambodians are likely regretting…is that they allowed the US some years ago to buy up and destroy all their man-portable surface-to-air missiles,” Karniol wrote in an e-mail Thursday. “And this means they have no protection against air attack.”

The problems of Cambodia’s military are many, the analysts said: scantly paid soldiers, a poorly organized amalgam of forces that were in conflict not long ago, and aging equipment from the Soviet era, among others.

“Segments of the Cambodian army may be experts in guerilla warfare, but still this is a fairly undisciplined army,” said Bertil Lintner, a Thailand-based journalist and consultant specialized in security issues. “It’s very difficult to see any real center of command,” he added by telephone from Bangkok on Tuesday.

But Thailand also has its issues. Facing street protests and a lack of confidence in Bangkok, the government has little leeway to negotiate with the Cambodian government, Huxley said by telephone from Singapore on Wednesday. The domestic turmoil also distracts the Thai army, which is known for political maneuvering and multiple coups, as does a Muslim rebellion in the country’s south, where many troops have been sent, he said.

The terrain around Preah Vihear temple-rugged jungle laced with landmines-is also a thorn in Thailand’s side.

If armed confrontation continued between the two countries, it would most likely be constant skirmishes such as those between Thailand and Laos in 1987-88, Huxley said-a type of fighting with which Cambodians are more acquainted than Thais.

But the Cambodian terrain could also play against its own soldiers. Cambodians access the area through a narrow, difficult road, Lintner said by telephone from Bangkok on Tuesday.

“If there’s a conflict, all the Thais would have to do is to bomb that road,” he said.

“The Cambodians would be trapped on the top of the cliff, with their backs against the steep drop down to the Cambodian lowlands,” Lintner added in an e-mail Tuesday. “It would be suicide for the Cambodian side to attack the Thais.”

(Photo: A Cambodian soldier carries his B40 grenade launcher at the Preah Vihear temple, Cambodia. 7 November 2008. By Isabelle Roughol)

By Isabelle Roughol and Eang Mengleng

A gun battle erupted Wednesday near Preah Vihear temple, resulting in the death of two RCAF soldiers, according to Cambodian officials. Ten Thai soldiers were also captured near the temple and are being held by RCAF, according to Foreign Affairs Minister Hor Namhong.

Following the fighting, which an official at the border said lasted about an hour, Thailand and Cambodia traded blame over who had initiated the skirmish and breached agreements made at several bilateral meetings since the border standoff began exactly three months ago.

“[Wednesday at 2:15 pm] Thai troops launched heavy armed attacks upon the Cambodian troops…in an apparent attempt to force the Cambodian troops out of their present positions inside Cambodian territory,” read a letter from the Cambodian Foreign Affairs Ministry to its Thai counterpart.

Two RCAF soldiers were killed and three injured, according to the statement.

Fighting occurred at three points, the statement said: the pagoda near the Preah Vihear temple, where Hor Namhong told reporters that the two soldiers were killed; Veal Intry, or “Eagle Field,” an area just west of the temple that both Thailand and Cambodia claim as their own; and Phnom Trap, a hill about 4 km west of the temple. These points of conflict lay 700 meters, 1,120 meters and 1,600 meters, respectively, inside Cambodian territory, the statement said.

Thailand had a different version of events: “Thai soldiers, while peacefully patrolling the area along the Thai-Cambodian border inside Thai territory…were shot at by Cambodian soldiers using RPG and sub-machine guns, which resulted in the injuries of five Thai soldiers,” read a letter from the Thai Foreign Affairs Ministry to its Cambodian counterpart.

“Of course, it’s like every attack in the past. We claim that they started first, and they claim that we started first,” said an official at the Thai Embassy in Phnom Penh, who asked not to be named because he was not authorized to speak to the press.

At a news conference Wednesday evening, Hor Namhong said Cambodian forces had detained 10 Thai soldiers who were made prisoners at the pagoda.

“Twenty Thai troops ran away, and we keep 10,” he said, adding they would be held for questioning.

The Thai Embassy official denied that prisoners were taken.

“Yes, they were disarmed, and they were forced to leave the pagoda, but no detention or no custody,” adding the troops in question were the 10 left at the pagoda in accordance with previous agreements between the two countries.

However, photographs from the temple area show Thai soldiers that had been taken prisoner seated on the ground under guard by Cambodian troops.

Both sides said they remained committed to bilateral negotiations and will hold a meeting near the temple between regional military commanders today.

Hor Namhong said Cambodia would brief the UN about the situation but would not yet request its intervention.

The foreign minister also briefed 22 ambassadors and representatives of foreign countries at the ministry Wednesday evening.

“We certainly have been watching the situation with concern and urging both Thailand and Cambodia to work to diffuse the situation,” said Piper Campbell, charge d’affaires at the US Embassy in Phnom Penh.

The Thai Embassy renewed its call for Thai citizens to think carefully before coming to or staying in Cambodia.

“If it’s not a must to stay, to take care of business or family, we would urge them to go back to Thailand for safety reasons,” the embassy official said.

He added the embassy had been preparing for a possible evacuation since the beginning of the 3-month military standoff, though no order had yet been given.

About 50 intervention police from the Ministry of Interior kept close watch over the Thai Embassy in Phnom Penh on Wednesday afternoon and night.

The policemen started lining Norodom Boulevard shortly after fighting broke out to guard the embassy compound, officers at the scene said.

The police presence is “a good way to help the embassy,” said You Vuthy, an embassy security staff supervisor, from behind barred windows. “I don’t worry about safety too much because the Cambodians are focusing on protection.”

The embassy employs between 50 and 60 Cambodians and Thais, and about 10 high-ranking officers were expected to spend the night as a safety precaution, You Vuthy said.

(Additional reporti