(Phnom Penh): For twelve consecutive days, Cambodia has exercised its right of self-defense in full conformity with international law, while Thailand has launched large-scale military operations across multiple frontlines, deploying heavy weapons, tanks, armored vehicles, toxic gas, and cluster munitions against Cambodian territory.
In the face of this clear and ongoing aggression, Cambodia’s armed forces did not initiate war. Instead, they responded only to the extent necessary and proportionate, solely to defend national sovereignty and the safety of the population, in accordance with the internationally recognized right of self-defense.
Cambodia’s response sends a clear message to the world: Cambodia is defending itself, not waging war—and it will not allow the aggression committed against it in 1941 to be repeated under a new pretext.
While a phone call from U.S. President Donald Trump signaled political and economic pressure on Thailand, it failed to halt the use of F-16 fighter jets and heavy weaponry on the battlefield. As a result, the international community—including China, ASEAN, and the European Union—has stepped in more actively, underscoring that the Cambodia–Thailand conflict is no longer a routine bilateral dispute, but a matter of regional security and respect for international law.
At the same time, as Thailand opened multiple combat fronts along the Cambodian border, Casey Barnett, President of the American Chamber of Commerce in Cambodia, warned the international community that Thailand’s current justifications closely resemble those used during its 1941 invasion of Cambodia.
Trump’s Statements: Strong Pressure, But Insufficient to Guarantee a Ceasefire
President Donald Trump’s threat of economic sanctions had immediate political value in exerting pressure on Thailand. However, that pressure quickly evaporated when official declarations diverged sharply from realities on the ground, where Thailand continued its military aggression against Cambodia.
Thailand’s prime minister employed conciliatory diplomatic language on international platforms, yet behind the scenes failed to honor commitments and openly dismissed concerns over potential U.S. economic sanctions. Thailand not only rejected compliance with the Kuala Lumpur Peace Joint Statement of October 26, 2025, but also publicly declared the continuation of military operations against Cambodia.
As a result, the ASEAN Observer Team (AOT) was rendered largely ineffective, unable to fully perform its mandate or verify battlefield realities, thereby losing its capacity to ensure a ceasefire. This reality underscores a fundamental truth: political pressure alone cannot replace enforcement mechanisms and on-the-ground verification.
The paralysis of monitoring mechanisms and the continued use of heavy weaponry compelled broader international intervention—from China, ASEAN, and the European Union—to prevent escalation and seek a viable path toward ending the Cambodia–Thailand border conflict before it expands into a wider war.
In this context, Casey Barnett wrote on December 18, drawing direct parallels between Thailand’s current actions and its 1941 aggression. He recalled that during World War II, Thailand—aligned with Imperial Japan—invaded Cambodian territory and annexed several provinces, using claims of cross-border incidents involving French colonial forces in Aranyaprathet as justification.
History later confirmed that these claims were merely pretexts prepared in advance for invasion. After Japan’s defeat in World War II, the Cambodian territories occupied by Thailand were returned lawfully to Cambodia. Barnett warned that the same justification employed in 1941 is now being revived in 2025, serving as a stark reminder that failure to clearly distinguish self-defense from aggression invites the repetition of historical injustice.
China: A Balancing Force, While the Battlefield Remains Active
China’s decision to dispatch a special envoy to Cambodia and Thailand demonstrates Beijing’s clear desire to prevent instability along the Cambodia–Thailand border and across Southeast Asia. As a close partner to both countries, China has opted for quiet diplomacy to de-escalate tensions and reduce the risk of wider conflict.
Given its strategic influence, China is uniquely positioned to exert behind-the-scenes pressure that other powers cannot apply publicly, aiming to prevent the lawful exercise of self-defense by any party from spiraling into full-scale war.
Nevertheless, battlefield reports on December 18—coinciding with the envoy’s visit—confirmed that Thailand continued deploying fighter aircraft and heavy weapons against Cambodian territory, particularly in Preah Vihear and Banteay Meanchey provinces. These facts demonstrate the severe limitations of diplomacy when confronted with continued military escalation on the ground.
ASEAN: Transforming a Bilateral Dispute into a Regional Security Issue
As ASEAN Chair, Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim announced on December 17 that he had contacted both Cambodian and Thai leaders, who expressed willingness to pursue a rapid resolution of the border dispute.
He further confirmed that ASEAN foreign ministers will meet on December 22 to urge both parties to prioritize peace and de-escalation. These actions signal that ASEAN can no longer remain passive in the face of a conflict threatening regional stability.
By placing the dispute within a regional responsibility framework, ASEAN seeks to ensure that the right of self-defense is not distorted into a nationalist or political pretext for aggression. However, serious concerns persist due to the ongoing disconnect between Thailand’s diplomatic rhetoric and its military actions on the ground.
European Union: Evidence as the Antidote to Disinformation
EU High Representative Kaja Kallas, Vice-President of the European Commission, stated on December 17 that the European Union is prepared to provide satellite imagery to monitor ceasefire compliance. She emphasized that the conflict must not be allowed to escalate further and that a ceasefire must be restored urgently.
The offer of satellite-based verification is pivotal. Objective, technical evidence can neutralize disinformation, expose false narratives, and clearly establish who is acting in self-defense and who is committing aggression. Such tools strengthen accountability and reinforce the integrity of international law.
Conclusion
Thailand’s aggression against Cambodia in 2025 is not an isolated incident, but a repetition of patterns witnessed in 1941. In response, Cambodia has stood firmly on international law, exercising its inherent right of self-defense in a necessary and proportionate manner to safeguard sovereignty, territory, and national security, consistent with the United Nations Charter.
Multilateral engagement by China, ASEAN, and the European Union does not constitute political interference by great powers. Rather, it represents a vital mechanism of the international community to ensure that self-defense is not misused as a cover for aggression, and that historical injustices are not repackaged under new narratives.
History teaches a clear lesson: when the international community hesitates or blurs the line between defense and aggression, injustice and war inevitably return.
Peace does not emerge from a single phone call. It is built upon international law, verifiable evidence, and historical memory—memory strong enough to prevent the repetition of past mistakes.
