What Is the Real Sincerity of Thailand’s Statement at the ICC–Preah Vihear Session?
What Is the Real Sincerity of Thailand’s Statement at the ICC–Preah Vihear Session?
#opinion
Recent reporting by Khaosod English on Thailand’s participation in the 11th ICC-Preah Vihear meeting requires important clarification.
At the 11th session of the International Coordinating Committee for the Conservation and Enhancement of the Temple of Preah Vihear (ICC–Preah Vihear), Cambodia demonstrated the highest level of diplomatic responsibility and goodwill.
Despite the extensive and well-documented destruction inflicted upon the Temple of Preah Vihear in 2025, Cambodia chose to invite Thailand to participate in the session, placing the principles of dialogue, transparency, and international cooperation above grievance.
The meeting itself was not symbolic. It was grounded in technical evidence. Following a physical mission to the site by international ad hoc experts, the session examined the scale and severity of the damage affecting hundreds of locations across the monument. The findings were deeply alarming.
Participants expressed profound sorrow for the harm caused to a World Heritage site of outstanding universal value and called for urgent measures to stabilize, conserve, and restore the temple before further deterioration, particularly with the approaching rainy season.
In this context, the conduct of the Thai representative stands in stark contrast. Rather than addressing the documented damage or engaging with the expert findings, the intervention remained confined to general and abstract statements on heritage protection, avoiding any reference to accountability or responsibility.
Such an approach does not contribute to the integrity of the conservation process; instead, it raises serious concerns regarding sincerity and good faith.
Even more troubling is the subsequent attempt to shape public perception. The use of photographic images with Cambodian cultural authorities, circulated in media narratives, creates a misleading impression that Thailand stands as a cooperative protector of the site.
This portrayal diverges significantly from the reality of the session, where the central issue, the destruction of the temple, was neither acknowledged nor substantively addressed by the Thai side.
If the commitment expressed in Thailand’s statement were genuine, the Temple of Preah Vihear would not bear such extensive damage today. Words of “protection,” “dialogue,” and “mutual respect” must be measured against actions on the ground.
The fundamental question therefore remains: what guarantees exist that such destruction will not recur in the future?
Cambodia, for its part, remains steadfast in its commitment to scientific conservation, transparency, and constructive international engagement.
However, the protection of shared heritage requires more than rhetoric. It requires accountability, honesty, and a demonstrated commitment to preventing further harm.
Without these elements, statements of goodwill risk being perceived not as acts of cooperation, but as attempts to obscure responsibility within the international record.
-Khmer Times-
