(Phnom Penh): The recent New York Times report, “How Chinese Weapons Transformed a War Between Two Neighbours”, has reignited debate over Cambodia’s military modernisation and the July 2025 clashes along the Cambodian-Thai border. The article, drawing heavily on leaked Thai intelligence documents, suggests that Chinese weapons shipments placed Cambodia in a more provocative posture and contributed directly to the escalation. While such accounts deserve attention, they also demand careful scrutiny. Selective readings risk obscuring deeper historical, structural, and regional dynamics at play.

Intelligence Reports and the Question of Neutrality
The foundation of the New York Times article lies in Thai military intelligence assessments that allegedly tracked Chinese Y-20 transport aircraft delivering rockets and artillery to Cambodia in June 2025. Intelligence documents, however, are not neutral artefacts. They are produced within political contexts and frequently serve strategic purposes, particularly in disputes between neighbouring states. The decision to leak such documents to foreign media inevitably raises questions about motive and timing.

Cambodia’s Ministry of Defence did not deny specific movements of equipment but emphasised that these coincided with the conclusion of annual joint exercises with the People’s Liberation Army. That explanation warrants consideration, especially given the absence of independently verified evidence such as satellite imagery or customs records. Without corroboration, intelligence claims should be treated with caution rather than assumed as fact.

Cambodia’s Security Calculus
Cambodia’s defence posture cannot be understood without reference to its vulnerabilities. The Cambodian defence budget is far smaller than Thailand’s, and the imbalance in capabilities is striking. Thailand maintains U.S.-supplied F-16 fighter aircraft and has recently approved the acquisition of Swedish Gripen fighter jets, adding to its advanced arsenal.

By contrast, Cambodia’s modernisation efforts have been driven by past experience. During the 2011 border clashes, Cambodian forces ran dangerously low on ammunition within days. That episode underscored the risks of being under-equipped and reinforced the imperative to strengthen deterrence. Since then, Cambodia has turned increasingly to Beijing for military assistance, including over $100 million in aid in 2018.

Seen in this light, Cambodia’s procurement of rockets and artillery should not be automatically equated with offensive intent. Like any state, Cambodia has a legitimate right to ensure that its forces are adequately supplied and capable of defending its sovereignty.

Civilian Harm and Reciprocal Escalation
The New York Times account emphasises claims that Cambodian rockets struck Thai civilian targets, resulting in casualties. Any harm to civilians is deeply regrettable, and Cambodia does not deny that heavy weapons were used. Yet the narrative is incomplete if it overlooks the reciprocal dimension of the fighting. Thailand’s deployment of F-16s for cross-border airstrikes also resulted in displacement and casualties on the Cambodian side.

Balanced analysis requires acknowledging that both sides escalated and that both populations suffered. To single out one party’s use of force without equal scrutiny of the other risks reinforcing a one-sided narrative that hinders reconciliation.

China’s Role: Supplier and Mediator
The report also raises concerns about China’s credibility as a neutral mediator, given its role as Cambodia’s principal defence partner. But the same article concedes that China has become Thailand’s largest arms supplier, surpassing the United States in recent years.

This duality illustrates the complexity of Beijing’s regional role. Arms sales to both Cambodia and Thailand coexist with Chinese diplomatic efforts to stabilise tensions. Indeed, China, alongside ASEAN mechanisms, played a crucial role in facilitating a ceasefire within five days of the outbreak of hostilities.

To suggest that China’s mediation is invalid because it supplies weapons is problematic. Great powers often mediate disputes while maintaining defence ties with both sides; a reality not unique to Southeast Asia.

Historical Context: Preah Vihear and Sovereignty
At the heart of the conflict lies the Preah Vihear temple, a UNESCO World Heritage Site whose status has been a recurring source of tension. The International Court of Justice ruled in 1962 that the temple belonged to Cambodia, and a 2013 ruling reaffirmed this judgment. Thailand has never entirely accepted these decisions, and national sentiment continues to complicate compliance. Cambodia’s recent infrastructure and troop deployments near the temple are often portrayed as militarisation. Yet Thailand’s reinforcement of outposts and supply lines is presented as a defensive measure. Such framing reflects an enduring asymmetry in external reporting. For Cambodia, asserting presence near Preah Vihear is fundamentally about safeguarding sovereignty and defending internationally recognized territory.

Nationalism, Domestic Politics, and External Speculation
Analysts cited in the New York Times speculate that Cambodia’s leadership sought confrontation to bolster domestic nationalism or due to personal dynamics with Thai political elites. Such interpretations may resonate in external commentary but risk overlooking the structural realities driving Cambodian behaviour. It is worth noting that Cambodia has consistently sought international arbitration, including through the International Court of Justice. Thailand, however, has resisted such avenues. This reluctance to pursue adjudication represents a critical factor in the persistence of the dispute, one that deserves greater attention in international analysis.

Toward Balanced Understanding
The July 2025 clashes were not the product of a single weapons shipment or a unilateral provocation. They emerged from a combustible mix of historical grievances, asymmetrical capabilities, contested sovereignty, and regional power dynamics. Cambodia’s reliance on Chinese arms is one element, but so too are Thailand’s acquisitions from the United States, Sweden, and China itself. A more balanced understanding recognises that:

• Both Cambodia and Thailand escalated militarily, and both populations suffered.
• Cambodia’s procurement of Chinese arms reflects strategic necessity, not reckless aggression.
• China plays a complex role as both supplier and mediator, a dynamic mirrored in other conflict regions.
• The unresolved status of Preah Vihear and the absence of mutually accepted arbitration mechanisms remain the structural drivers of instability.

As international observers and policymakers evaluate the July conflict, it is vital to avoid narratives that portray Cambodia as the perennial aggressor and Thailand as the passive victim. Both states bear responsibility for escalation, and both must be part of a sustainable resolution. The path forward lies not in the politicisation of intelligence leaks or the repetition of one-sided accounts, but in dialogue, trust-building, and renewed efforts to engage international legal institutions. Cambodia does not seek sympathy. What it asks is fairness. Recognition that its security concerns are legitimate, that its sovereignty is absolute, and that peace requires balanced reporting as much as it requires political compromise.

Seng Vanly is a Geopolitical Analyst, and Thong Mengdavid is a Geopolitical and International Security Analyst.

This article was first published on Khmer Times.
=FRESH NEWS