EDITORIAL
Foreign Minister Noppadon Pattama can no longer maintain the credibility and prestige of his very important office. He has no option but to "reconsider" himself and offer his resignation.
There should be no misunderstanding. The cause of Mr Noppadon's downfall is not that Cambodia has finally received the much-needed nod from the World Heritage Committee to inscribe its Preah Vihear temple as a World Heritage site. Cambodia has every right to seek the inscription and Thailand stands ready to congratulate Phnom Penh on its success in securing the essential recognition and funds to preserve the stone ruins whose condition is best described as woeful.
Mr Noppadon, however, has no standing left to serve as Thailand's foreign minister, following the Constitution Court's ruling that he made a mistake and bypassed the necessary process of securing an endorsement from Parliament before signing the joint communique pledging Thailand's support for Cambodia's proposal to have Preah Vihear inscribed as a World Heritage site.
In a process that has been widely criticised as being too rushed and lacking in communication with, or any participation from, the general public, Mr Noppadon met with Cambodian Deputy Prime Minister Sok An at the Unesco headquarters in Paris in May. He then agreed to sign the controversial joint communique dated June 18, which referred to the map prepared by the Cambodian authorities showing the perimeter of the temple and a buffer zone to the east and south, as the basis of Thailand's support for her neighbour's inscription proposal.
Mr Noppadon, himself a lawyer, argued all along that the document had no effect on Thai territory and was not legally binding on Thailand. He insisted the communique was thus not qualified as an international treaty, which is required by Section 190 of the Constitution to need Parliament's endorsement before the government can proceed and commit itself to.
A group of senators and members of Parliament did not agree with Mr Noppadon's interpretation. They petitioned the Constitution Court to rule on both questions.
In its decision yesterday, the court made it clear that Mr Noppadon was wrong on both counts.
On the question of whether the joint communique qualifies as a treaty, the court was unanimous that it does. The communique possesses all the elements befitting a treaty as defined by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969. On the question whether the communique required Parliament's endorsement, the court ruled in an 8:1 decision that it does.
Mr Noppadon needs no reminder that he should have realised the delicacy of the Preah Vihear issue from the outset and proceeded on the matter in a more open manner. He could have handled it in a more consultative, less authoritative and secretive fashion, which could have saved him the surprise, suspicion and reproach from the uninformed public.Unfortunately, Mr Noppadon chose to trust his mastery of legal matters over public opinion. Right from the beginning, Mr Noppadon left no room for other people's opinions. He kept assuring the public that the approach the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was following under his guidance was not only the best but the only way forward on a matter that is close to the hearts of people in both countries. Now that his way has proved to be the wrong way, Mr Noppadon must acknowledge the disgrace and bow out.
Prev
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Next
