(Phnom Penh): Thailand’s latest attempt to portray Cambodia as the aggressor in border tensions follows a familiar and troubling pattern: deflect responsibility, personalize the issue, and repeat accusations loudly enough to obscure facts. The recent statement by Lt. Gen. Wanchana Sawasdee posted on Khaosod, attacking Cambodia’s leadership is not objective analysis. It is a political narrative aimed at shifting blame away from Thailand’s own actions along the Thai–Cambodian border.

Central to this narrative is a deliberate distortion of history. The 2008–2011 Preah Vihear conflict was not a “war for image-building,” as claimed. It erupted after Thailand refused to fully accept the International Court of Justice’s ruling affirming Cambodia’s sovereignty over the Preah Vihear Temple and surrounding areas. Cambodia did not initiate confrontation; it defended internationally recognized territory. Attempts to recast this episode as political theater erase legal reality and disregard the human cost of the conflict.

The claim that Cambodia engineers border incidents for domestic political gain is equally misleading. Cambodia has consistently exercised restraint, called for dialogue, and urged respect for bilateral and international mechanisms. These are not the actions of a state seeking escalation. In contrast, Thailand has repeatedly advanced narratives of “self-defense” while engaging in military posturing and public rhetoric that inflame tensions rather than resolve them.

Thailand’s assertion of victimhood also collapses under basic scrutiny. A simple comparison of military capabilities reveals a stark imbalance. The party with overwhelming military superiority and escalation dominance cannot credibly portray itself as under threat from a smaller neighbor. Volume and repetition do not transform accusation into fact.

Equally problematic is the effort to personalize a bilateral dispute by attacking Cambodia’s leadership. Cambodia’s political succession in 2023 occurred through constitutional and domestic processes—matters of national sovereignty. External attempts to delegitimize those processes serve as a smokescreen, diverting attention from Thailand’s own conduct. The irony is striking, given Thailand’s modern political history of repeated military interventions overriding civilian governance.

What Lt. Gen. Wanchana’s assertion conspicuously omits is Thailand’s internal political context. On 10 December 2025, Thai political figure Pita Limjaroenrat publicly warned that Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul faces intense domestic pressure linked to allegations of corruption, abuse of power, and political survival. While these allegations remain part of Thailand’s internal political debate, their relevance lies in the broader pattern they highlight: when domestic legitimacy is fragile, external confrontation can become a convenient distraction.

Pita cautioned that escalating conflict with neighboring countries could be used to manufacture nationalist support and consolidate backing from powerful institutions, particularly the military. Thailand’s own experience during 2008–2011 supports this warning. That period yielded no lasting national benefit, yet strengthened military influence and reshuffled political power in Bangkok. Cambodia paid a heavy price for a conflict it did not seek.

This context fundamentally undermines claims that Cambodia benefits from instability. Cambodia gains nothing from escalation, economic disruption, or international scrutiny. The incentives for manufactured confrontation, if any, lie elsewhere.

The facts remain straightforward. Cambodia has not invaded Thailand, nor has it sought conflict for political theater or power consolidation. Cambodia continues to call for peace, dialogue, and respect for internationally recognized borders. Thailand’s attempt to shift blame through recycled accusations and historical revisionism cannot conceal reality.

The international community should look beyond sensational rhetoric and judge events by actions, law, and restraint. Peace will not be achieved through distortion and deflection, but through accountability and respect for sovereignty.

This article was written by Meng Bill, Southeast Asian Political Observer.
=FRESH NEWS