Bangkok: "Noppadol" points out that MOU 44 does not accept Cambodia's continental shelf. The content is beneficial to negotiations. Those who call for the cancellation of contradictory reasons ask not to use the rhetoric of losing territory to cause damage like in the past. According to Thai News Agency, Mr. Noppadon Pattama, MP for the Pheu Thai Party and former Minister of Foreign Affairs, addressed the controversy surrounding MOU 44 in the wake of escalating calls for its cancellation. The calls stem from claims that MOU 44 accepts Cambodia's continental shelf, potentially jeopardizing Thailand's maritime rights. Mr. Noppadon refuted these claims, stating that there are no provisions within MOU 44 that endorse Cambodia's maritime claims. He emphasized that Thailand has neither acted nor agreed to Cambodia's line, and Article 5 of MOU 44 explicitly ensures that the agreement does not influence the maritime claims of either nation. Moreover, Mr. Noppadon explained that the MOU includes a diagram representi ng the maritime claims of both countries, underscoring that agreeing to the MOU does not equate to accepting Cambodia's line. He highlighted that the Department of Treaties and Law has clarified that the MOU is solely a framework for negotiations, not an endorsement of the opposing party's claims. The second point of contention is the belief that if the government negotiates with Cambodia and utilizes resources in the joint development area, Thailand would forfeit its maritime rights. Mr. Noppadon acknowledged this theory but argued that the assumption is flawed. He pointed out that negotiations on maritime division and the joint development area must occur concurrently and cannot be separated, as stipulated in Section 2 of MOU 44. Mr. Noppadon warned of potential repercussions if MOU 44 is annulled, such as the persistence of overlapping claims in the 26,000 sq. km. area and the inability of both nations to explore oil and gas. He stressed that the obligation to negotiate maritime demarcation would also be nullified, which would not serve Thailand's interests. He saw MOU 44 as an opportunity to reach a resolution aligned with international law. Reflecting on past events, Mr. Noppadon recalled the rhetoric of lost territory that surfaced in 2008, which led to political turmoil and military clashes. He urged against repeating such rhetoric, which had previously resulted in national harm. He mentioned that after the 2014 coup, the Cabinet had approved negotiations on the overlapping claims area under MOU 44 until 2023, and he questioned the motives of those now calling for its cancellation. Mr. Noppadon concluded by urging individuals with genuine concerns to present them to the government constructively rather than resort to accusations and distortions, highlighting the importance of maintaining a stable and diplomatic approach to the issue.
Menu