(Phnom Penh): In recent weeks, the Cambodian public and international observers have been subjected to a wave of misleading articles by Thai voices. Particularly, a commentary written by a Thai researcher featured “Thailand-Cambodia conflict: legacy politics and premeditated escalation” and published by The Strategist, attempts to reframe the current border crisis through a dangerously distorted lens. The piece, cloaked in academic language, offers a deeply flawed narrative that misrepresents facts, selectively omits key events, and dangerously seeks to legitimize Thailand’s military escalation under the guise of “national self-defense.” It is not only necessary, but urgent, to correct this narrative before it misleads public opinion and undermines Cambodia’s credibility and regional peace.

Infrastructure Development: A Misinterpreted Necessity
The author argues that Cambodia’s border infrastructure development serves military purposes, implying provocation or preparation for aggression. This assumption is misleading at best, disingenuous at worst. Cambodia’s investment in border infrastructure is a long-overdue effort to connect marginalized communities, provide basic public services, and reinforce administrative control over previously underdeveloped regions. Border provinces have historically suffered from underinvestment due to decades of post-conflict recovery. Roads, health posts, and administrative centers in these areas are not new tools of militarization but essential components of state-building and national rehabilitation. Even if such infrastructure enhances mobility, including for security purposes, it remains a sovereign right under international law for any state to ensure its defensive posture, especially when confronted with imminent threats. Thailand, not Cambodia, introduced militarized tension into this situation through building up key events. A series of Thailand’s scenarios include the initial deadly sneak attack on a Cambodian soldier on May 28, threats of closing border checkpoints, threats of cutting electricity, fuel, and internet supply, and the deviation of Thai military patrols into mine-contaminated areas inside Cambodian territory despite being informed, all of which paint a different picture. These actions amount to sustained provocation—evidence that Cambodia’s preparedness is reactive, not provocative.

Political Diversion Begins in Bangkok
The researcher’s claim that Cambodia is driven by legacy politics and domestic distractions is a projection of Thailand’s own political strategy. It is no secret that Thailand’s internal politics are impaired by chaos and instability, widespread dissatisfaction with military dominance, demands for reform of royal-military entanglements, and a restive youth intellectuals’ movement increasingly challenging the status quo. In times of internal crisis, governments often resort to external scapegoating. By manipulating media narratives and exaggerating border tensions, Thai military aim to unify public opinion around nationalist sentiment and silence the domestic criticism. This tactic is not new—it is a playbook used by insecure regimes globally. In contrast, Cambodia has approached this crisis with composure and consistency. Prime Minister Hun Manet’s government has called for international and regional mediation, expressed willingness to work under ASEAN’s framework, and remained committed to legal mechanisms under the International Court of Justice (ICJ). This is not the behavior of a state seeking conflict, but rather a mark of responsible and mature diplomacy.

Humanitarian Rhetoric Without Responsibility
The Thai researcher expressed civilian impact and humanitarian concerns, but omits critical context. Thailand is the initiator of large-scale military operations that have included the use of F-16 fighter jets carrying cluster munitions—widely banned under international conventions and end-user agreements with the United States. It has deployed MK-82 aerial bombs, causing major destruction to Cambodia’s UNESCO protected cultural heritage sites, including areas surrounding the Preah Vihear and Ta Muan temples. More alarmingly, there is growing evidence that chemical agents have been used against Cambodian border personnel, which would constitute a grave breach of the Chemical Weapons Convention. Drone strikes targeting civilian zones violate not only the Geneva Conventions but also the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, to which Thailand is not a party, but whose principles still apply as customary international law. To speak of humanitarian suffering while initiating such acts is an attempt to whitewash blame and accountability. If Thailand is genuinely concerned about civilian impact, it should halt all offensive operations, accept international observers, and be held accountable for its use of prohibited weapons.

The Road to Peace: Multilateralism Over Mistrust
Finally, the article suggests that bilateral dialogue is the way forward. Cambodia does not oppose dialogue, but it cannot be a substitute for legal accountability and multilateral oversight. Thailand’s insistence on bypassing ICJ mechanisms and avoiding international court represents a desire to control the narrative and outcome on its own terms, far from the scrutiny of neutral or impartial parties. In contrast, Cambodia has consistently advocated for solutions rooted in regional cooperation and international law. The ceasefire mediated by Malaysia and witnessed by global powers like the United States and China is a step in the right direction but its success depends entirely on Thailand’s sincerity. True peace will not be found in unilateral declarations, biased narratives, or aggressive posturing. It will come through adherence to international law, open diplomacy, and mutual respect for sovereignty.

The analysis may have sought to provide insights, but it instead exposes a wider strategy: reframing aggression as defense, blaming the victim, and misleading the world about who is threatening peace in the region. Cambodia’s position is rooted in legality, restraint, and commitment to peaceful resolution. As such, it is essential that the international community and regional actors see through this smokescreen of propaganda and recognize the true source of instability along the border. Cambodia does not seek conflict. But it will not remain passive in the face of aggression, nor silent in the face of falsehoods. The truth must be told and justice must follow.

Samath Chansomanith, President of VOHAR-Strategic Sight Center.
=FRESH NEWS