US embassy cable - 05BANGKOK1921

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 BANGKOK 001921 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPARTMENT FOR EAP/BCLTV, EAP/PD 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 03/11/2015 
TAGS: PGOV, KPAO, TH 
SUBJECT: THAIS SEEK RETURN OF CLAIMED ROYAL HEADDRESS 
 
REF: A) BANGKOK 1617 B) BANGKOK 1737 C) BANGKOK 1527 
 
Classified By: Classified by Political Counselor Robert J. Clarke, Reas 
on 1.4 (d) 
 
 1. (C)  SUMMARY:  Thai media and some politicians have 
recently called for the return to Thailand of a 500-year old 
royal headdress which they claim was stolen in the 1950s. 
The headdress is currently on display at the San Francisco 
Asian Art Museum, on loan from the Philadelphia Museum of 
Art.  At the urging of the Prime Minister, the Ministries of 
Foreign Affairs and Culture set up committees to investigate 
the authenticity and possible return of the relic.  Private 
individuals and one publicity-seeking MP have staged several 
demonstrations at the Embassy urging return of the headdress. 
 Recently, some prominent individuals quietly approached the 
Embassy hoping to negotiate a discreet return of the "crown" 
to the Thai Royal Family.  SUMMARY 
 
2. (U) During a news lull between Thailand's February 6 
general election and the official swearing in of Prime 
Minister Thaksin's new cabinet on March 14, local media 
focused attention on a controversy over a golden royal 
headdress currently on display at the Asian Art Museum in San 
Francisco.  The headdress, an item in an exhibit entitled 
"The Kingdom of Siam: The Art Of Central Thailand 1350-1800," 
is on loan through May 8 from the permanent collection of the 
Philadelphia Museum of Art, which reportedly bought it from 
Sotheby's auction house in 1982. When and how the piece got 
from Thailand to Sotheby's is unclear.  Interestingly, the 
controversy in Thailand was stirred by Prime Minister Thaksin 
himself.  Thaksin apparently saw a Thai news report about a 
raid by thieves on Thai Buddhist temples in Ayuddhya Province 
in the 1950s.  The news story supposedly traced some of the 
relics lost in that temple raid to the current exhibit in San 
Francisco.  On the basis of the news report, Thaksin asked 
the former Minster of Culture Anurak Chureemas to 
investigate, and publicly announced his decision to pursue 
the matter on March 1. 
 
3. (U)  Ayuddhya, located some 80 kilometers north of 
Bangkok, was the capital of the Kingdom of Siam from the 14th 
to 18th centuries.  The headdress reportedly was made in 1424 
and belonged to King Borom Rajathiraj II.  Local news 
reporters interviewed an elderly man who claimed he was one 
of the last surviving members of a band which over 50 years 
ago had raided the temple where the headdress was kept. 
According to various accounts, the headdress was among golden 
palace artifacts which had been hidden inside Buddha images 
to protect them from the marauding Burmese army which 
ransacked the former capital prior to the fall of the 
Ayuddhya Kingdom in 1767.  To date, no other major Thai royal 
artifacts have been identified in the San Francisco exhibit 
and claimed. 
 
ELEPHANTS VISIT EMBASSY GATES 
 
4. (U) Initial media coverage used misnomers to describe the 
controversial relic as the  "Ayuddhya Crown Jewels," or 
"Crown of Ayuddhya."  The piece is not a ceremonial crown, 
but a royal headdress worn on day-to-day occasions.  On March 
3 and 8, peaceful protests were held at the US Embassy to 
demand the return of the object (Refs A and B.)  The first 
was highlighted by the participation of 5 adult elephants and 
one baby elephant from the Ayuddhya Elephant camp. Many of 
the approximately 200 demonstrators carried the former 
national flag of Siam which features the symbol of an 
elephant on a red background.   It is unclear who organized 
the demonstration but it coincided with the release of the 
2004 Country Human Rights Report and calls for protests by a 
local TV news personality who was vehemently critical of the 
report, which criticized Thailand's recent human rights 
record (Ref C).  Written on the side of one elephant was the 
message, "Traitors helped sack Ayuddhya once, don't let them 
do it again."  The second demonstration, organized by 
opposition Member of Parliament Chuwit Kamolwisit, provided 
an opportunity for media grandstanding by the former massage 
parlor and brothel tycoon.  Chuwit presented a letter to an 
Embassy officer calling for the return of the crown. 
 
OFFICIAL RESPONSE 
 
5. (U)   On March 4, the Ministries of Foreign Affairs and 
Culture set up three subcommittees to investigate the 
headdress issue.  The committees will first address the 
authenticity of the headdress, seek a legal mechanism to 
prove its ownership and then address negotiations for its 
return.  The Embassy has not yet been contacted by MFA 
concerning this matter. 
 
6. (SBU) Separately, on March 3, the Department of Fine Arts 
(under the Ministry of Culture) contacted the Embassy's 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) office to seek 
assistance in the return of the headdress.  The Bangkok ICE 
office contacted their New York Field office to report 
possible stolen artifacts located in the US but of Thai 
origin.  ICE would need proof of authenticity and origin of 
the article in order to issue a summons to the Philadelphia 
Art Museum for the return of the object.  ICE investigations 
in the U.S. and Thailand continue. 
 
A MESSAGE FROM THE PRINCESS? 
 
7. (C)  On March 10, the Vice Governor of Pathumthani 
Province, Mom Luang (M.L.) Panadda Diskul contacted the 
Embassy directly to discuss the headdress issue.  ML Panadda 
is the great grandson of the late Prayaracha Damrong, who 
founded the Ministry of Interior and was a son of King Rama 
IV.  ML Panadda is known to be well connected to King 
Bhumibol's daughter, Her Royal Highness Princess Maha Chakri 
Sirindhorn.  He is also chairman of the board of directors of 
the respected Prince Damrong Rajanupab Museum and Library. 
During a brief meeting with the Cultural Affairs officer, 
Poloffs and ICE agents, ML Panadda expressed his desire to 
see this matter settled privately and not "politically."  He 
expressed concern that the story of the headdress was being 
distorted by the media and politicians as a nationalistic 
issue.  "Some individuals were not really interested in 
preserving an important cultural artifact," he said.  He 
asked the Embassy whether, if the headdress were to be 
returned to Thailand, it could be given to the Royal Family 
and not directly to the RTG.  He specifically mentioned 
giving it to Princess Sirindhorn via private, unspecified 
channels.  ML Panadda also hinted that a good time to return 
the headdress might be next year during the 60th anniversary 
commemorations of King Bhumibol's accession to the throne. 
He expressed his hope that the matter of the headdress would 
not spark a major "diplomatic incident" between the U.S. and 
Thailand.  ML Panadda repeatedly stated that he was visiting 
the Embassy in his private capacity as a close associate of 
Princess Sirindhorn and not in his official capacity as a 
Thai civil servant. 
 
8. (C) COMMENT:   The publicity surrounding the headdress has 
generated great public interest in the issue of stolen Thai 
artifacts.  Stories in the print and broadcast media 
immediately focused on quick repatriation of the headdress in 
San Francisco to the Kingdom.  More recent media coverage 
observed that the RTG and private Thai foundations have in 
many cases failed to protect Thailand's antiquities from 
plunder.  Museums in Ayuddhya featuring artifacts from the 
same historic era as the alleged royal headdress also 
registered a large increase in attendance.  Thais are rightly 
proud of their cultural heritage and particularly sensitive 
about antiquities associated with royalty.  The private 
intervention with the Embassy from ML Panadda, which could 
genuinely have been at the behest of the King's favorite 
daughter and popular "People's Princess," indicates the level 
of interest and pride in this golden treasure.  END COMMENT. 
BOYCE