Myanmar Monk Student Association

But who actually won, and what did they win?
Cambodia says the UNSC's call made no mention of bilateral mechanisms to resolve the dispute, which Thailand has insisted upon since the start of the dispute that escalated into armed clashes.
Phnom Penh also claimed success in raising the issue before the UNSC with Cambodian Foreign Minister Hor Namhong continuing to insist that bilateral talks would not work and adding that ''all negotiations must always have the participation of a third party''.
Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva said: ''When the international community thinks the problem should be solved through negotiations, Cambodia has no reason to refuse. They should return to the [bilateral] talks.''

• Meanwhile...: More fighting at the border

While the UNSC did respond to Phnom Penh's call for a permanent ceasefire, it did not react to its call for the deployment of UN peacekeepers to act as a buffer in the disputed zone.
As far as negotiations are concerned, technically Cambodia is right.
The UNSC did not specifically mention bilateral mechanisms. It mentioned in stead ''restraint, dialogue and support for Asean's efforts''.
But United Nations secretary-general Ban Ki-moon on Monday referred to the use of ''existing mechanisms'', which means all mechanisms in existence _ including bilateral ones _ to resolve the dispute peacefully.
The UNSC's position on Monday was in fact a statement by its president, Brazilian ambassador Maria Luiza Ribeiro Viotti.
There was no UNSC resolution, and the council president's statement is not binding, but it carries moral authority because it reflects the unanimous view of council members.
''Both sides get a bit of what they were looking for, but not a full loaf,'' a senior Asean figure told the Bangkok Post.
''In this kind of diplomatic game, it is rare that one side gets everything and the other side gets nothing.
''Both sides can claim a victory and call on the other side to fulfil what was left undetermined.''
The analyst noted that, in 2008, Cambodia raised the border issue at the Asean Ministerial Meeting in Singapore. Thailand resisted, insisting the dispute be resolved bilaterally.
Thailand did the same thing last week when Asean chair and Indonesian Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa visited both countries.
But the UNSC clearly stated on Monday that it supported Asean's role in the resolution of the dispute.
Thailand is now saying it agrees to a regional parley ''in support'' of a bilateral process, the analyst said.
While Cambodia did not get the UN to stand guard between the Thai troops and its soldiers on the border, it did manage to raise the issue with the UNSC _ the highest security forum of the international community, said an Asean observer in Singapore.
''The call for Asean to help resolve the conflicts could be seen as a victory of sorts for Cambodia,'' the observer said.
''If it has not fully internationalised the dispute, it has at least regionalised it. And the record at the UNSC is a comforting guarantee that if anything goes badly wrong again, the UNSC is bound to take it up more readily again.''
The question now is what lies ahead.
Mr Marty alluded to this challenge on Monday when he said ''the issue here is to extract a clear commitment from Thailand and Cambodia for a peaceful resolution'', indicating the Asean meeting would put pressure on the two countries to reach an agreement.
He said Mr Kasit and Hor Namhong had ''professed peaceful intent'' before the council and that the Asean foreign ministers meeting in Jakarta next week should ''flesh it out''.
According to a senior Asean diplomat, Asean faces fresh challenges following the appeal by the UNSC on Monday in New York.
Asean must come up with a minimum consensus on how to respond to the call.
''This is a historic first for Asean,'' the senior Asean diplomat said.
Under articles 52 and 53 of the UN Charter, the UNSC is allowed to delegate and share responsibility with regional organisations to help resolve conflicts.
''Asean will have to decide what are the best mechanisms to put in place to ensure the ceasefire will hold and that no more violence shall erupt,'' the senior diplomat said.
The question is whether a monitoring mechanism of sorts is acceptable to Thailand and Cambodia, as well as the other member states who would be averse to involvement in external political and security issues.
Asean will also have to put its own charter pertaining to dispute settlement mechanisms (Articles 22 and 23) into full implementation.
These articles call for establishment of permanent dispute settlement mechanisms in all areas in anticipation of the establishment of the Asean economic community by 2015.
There is an urgent need for a final arbiter to adjudicate conflicts likely to occur in a more integrated community.
It will have to accept that it needs a programme of capacity-building for ''good offices, conciliation and mediation'', as dictated by the charter.
This will not be the last time that Asean will have to respond to such challenges and the international community will expect the grouping to play a mediating role among its own.
The senior Asean diplomat said: ''This is a turning point for Asean in its transformation to a rule-based organisation.''
Success or failure in Jakarta to respond to the UNSC's appeal and to make advances for a permanent dispute mechanism, or at least agree to a road map towards this goal, not only depends on Thailand and Cambodia but on all of its members.
Both Thailand and Cambodia can win in Jakarta. But, more importantly, the resolution of this dispute would mean Asean wins as well.
By the same token, failure by both countries to talk would mean Asean as a whole fails as well, not only as far as the UNSC appeal is concerned but in terms of being able to rise to the occasion and shoulder the responsibilities it has volunteered to take on according to its own aspirations enshrined in its own charter.

http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/221803/split-decision-with-both-claiming-victory