(Phnom Penh): For years, whenever gunfire erupted from the Thai side—causing fear, panic, and sometimes even the deaths and injuries of Cambodian civilians along the border—Thailand repeatedly resorted to the same standard denials:
“Not true,” “fake news,” “fabricated by Cambodia,” “not done by Thai forces.”
But the 11:08 a.m. explosion on November 19, 2025, at Checkpoint Chhor1, Thma Da commune, Veal Veng district, Pursat province, occurred under the full view of the ASEAN Observer Team (AOT) – the official regional monitoring mechanism.
This time, the incident is no longer a claim by Cambodia.
It is an event witnessed by ASEAN itself.
As the AOT was conducting a field verification mission under the Kuala Lumpur Peace Agreement, a loud and unmistakable weapon explosion was heard clearly from the Thai side. For safety, the AOT was forced to temporarily halt its operation.
Now the question stands: How can Thailand deny this incident?
*Thailand Violates Peace in Front of ASEAN Observers
Since the signing of the Kuala Lumpur Peace Agreement on October 26, 2025, Cambodia has fully and professionally complied with all obligations—troop redeployments, peace zones, and ceasefire commitments—without exception.
Thailand, in contrast, has violated the agreement repeatedly, often assuming that areas “behind the AOT line” were beyond ASEAN’s sight.
But the November 19 explosion did not happen behind ASEAN’s back. It happened in front of ASEAN’s official monitoring team.
Even in the presence of AOT observers, Thailand still dared to violate the ceasefire—constituting a grave breach of the peace agreement.
*What Is the AOT and Why Is Thailand’s Violation Serious?
At the time of the explosion, the ASEAN Observer Team was conducting a field inspection of the ceasefire. As an international mechanism under the ASEAN framework, the AOT has four primary duties:
• Monitor implementation of the Kuala Lumpur Peace Agreement
• Inspect border and ceasefire zones
• Verify weapon explosions, troop movements, and all violations
• Report findings to the RBC/JBC and ASEAN leadership
Therefore, when the AOT heard a weapon explosion directly from the Thai side on November 19, it was not Cambodia reporting the incident.
It was ASEAN itself that witnessed it.
*Can Thailand Still Deny or Blame Cambodia?
Thailand has traditionally relied on its three-step defensive strategy:
1. Total denial, claiming “not our troops.”
2. Discrediting Cambodia, calling reports “fake news.”
3. Reversing the accusation, claiming Cambodia caused the incident or fired first.
But this time, Thailand cannot use any of these tactics. The explosion occurred directly in front of AOT observers—representing the entire ASEAN community, not just Cambodia.
The AOT will file its report to ASEAN and relevant partners such as the United States. This makes the November 19 incident an internationally verified case, not a bilateral allegation. If Thailand denies the incident now, it is not denying Cambodia. It is denying ASEAN.
This transforms the violation into a clash between Thailand and ASEAN, not Thailand and Cambodia.
*Thai Commander Issues Rebuttal: “Fake AOT, Firecracker Explosion, Staged Scene”
After Cambodia revealed the November 19 incident, the Commander of the Trat Marine Task Force, Captain Thammnoon Wanna, publicly attacked Cambodia.
According to Khaosod English, the Thai commander made several allegations:
• Cambodia brought a “fake AOT team”—around 30 people wearing blue helmets—to stage the incident
• He claimed the group “was not the real AOT,” because genuine AOT teams would coordinate with Thailand first
• He accused Cambodia of “burning firecrackers” to create a loud explosion before blaming Thailand for throwing a grenade
• He further alleged Cambodia “edited photos” using old AOT images to make it appear the observers were present during the incident
He went as far as accusing Cambodia of using “terrorist tactics” to create rumors and spread misinformation.
However, the same Khaosod English report explicitly added an important disclaimer:
Khaosod English could not independently verify the Thai commander’s claims.
This means that Thailand’s rebuttal relies solely on unsubstantiated military statements, not on any verified evidence or international observation.
*Conclusion:
The November 19 explosion reveals one essential truth: Cambodia was not engaged in a conflict with Thailand at that moment.
Cambodia was standing as a witness for ASEAN, allowing the regional mechanism to verify the situation at Checkpoint Chhor1 with their own eyes.
For decades, Thailand has violated Cambodia’s territorial integrity along the border—often using fabricated stories, manipulated evidence, or unfair accusations to obscure the truth and avoid responsibility. But November 19, 2025 was different.
The incident occurred in full view of the ASEAN Observer Team—representatives from multiple countries who witnessed the event firsthand.
Therefore, if Thailand continues to deny responsibility, it must not deny Cambodia;
it must deny ASEAN, the international witnesses who heard and saw the violation directly.
This episode marks a major strategic victory for Cambodia’s approach of “quiet but not silent”—a strategy that avoids violent confrontation but relies on international law, the Kuala Lumpur Peace Agreement, and ASEAN mechanisms to reveal the truth to the world.
Cambodia did not need to speak loudly. ASEAN spoke on Cambodia’s behalf.
