(Phnom Penh): Cambodian Information Minister Neth Pheaktra underscored that a ceasefire means no advance, no creation of new facts on the ground, and no creation of new borders, stressing that a ceasefire cannot transform territory unlawfully occupied through the use of force into the lawful territory of the occupying party.
In a social media post on Tuesday (Sep. 8), Neth Pheaktra raised a fundamental question: Can a ceasefire transform territory unlawfully occupied by force into lawful territory belonging to the occupying party?
He said the answer is no.
The minister noted that this principle is consistent with international law and with the Joint Statement of 27 December 2025, signed by Cambodia and Thailand.
The ceasefire entered into force at 12:00 noon on 27 December 2025, with the two sides agreeing to several principles, including no advance, no further troop movement, no reinforcement or expansion beyond their respective sides, no obstruction of civilians returning home, and no creation of new borders.
However, the Cambodian minister pointed out that Thailand has not complied with these obligations.
Thailand Cannot Selectively Invoke Only the Paragraphs That Serve Its Interests
Neth Pheaktra said Thailand has argued that the Joint Statement requires both sides to maintain their current troop positions.
However, he stressed that Paragraph 2 cannot be read in isolation from Paragraphs 3, 4 and 6.
According to the minister, freezing troop positions is a temporary military measure and does not constitute recognition of sovereignty.
“Freezing troop positions is not the same as freezing sovereignty,” he said.
“Troop positions are not international boundaries. Factual control is not legal title.”
He further pointed out that Thai forces advanced deep into Cambodian territory after the ceasefire and continued occupying and constructing positions on Cambodian soil, beyond the international boundary and, in some areas, even beyond Thailand’s own unilaterally asserted line.
Paragraph 3 of the Joint Statement, he noted, clearly states that the arrangements are without prejudice to the work of border demarcation and do not affect the international boundary between the two countries.
The Joint Statement also prohibits provocative actions and requires both sides to refrain from constructing or reinforcing military infrastructure and fortifications beyond their respective sides.
Therefore, the minister stressed, if Thai forces installed barbed wire and containers, dug trenches, constructed fortifications, built roads, or reinforced positions on legally Cambodian territory, such actions cannot be justified by saying, “We are merely maintaining our current troop positions.”
He said such construction and reinforcement after the ceasefire would consolidate control and create new facts on the ground, potentially creating a fait accompli and, ultimately, risking the incorporation of territory through annexation.
Such actions, he underscored, would be unlawful and would violate Cambodia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
The Right of Civilians to Return Is a Practical Test of Thailand’s Argument
The minister said the right of civilians to return home provides a practical test of Thailand’s claim that it is merely maintaining existing troop positions.
“If there is no unlawful occupation, why are approximately 20,000 displaced Cambodian civilians still unable to return home?” he asked.
He noted that Paragraph 4 of the Joint Statement requires affected civilians to return to their homes and resume their normal livelihoods without obstruction, in safety and dignity.
If civilians remain unable to return because of Thai military forces, roadblocks, barbed wire, containers, or other obstacles, he said Thailand cannot simply rely on the argument that it is “maintaining current troop positions.”
The minister stressed that such circumstances amount to unlawful encroachment and raise serious concerns under international law and human rights law.
He emphasised that the use of force cannot extinguish the rights of civilians to their homes, land, and communities.
Thailand Cannot Maintain Two Contradictory Positions at the Same Time
Neth Pheaktra said Thailand cannot simultaneously claim to respect the Joint Statement while using the concept of “current troop positions” to maintain control over territory that Cambodia legally claims as Cambodian territory.
The two positions, he stressed, cannot stand together.
He explained that Thailand signed the provision stating that the arrangements are without prejudice to the international boundary. Therefore, Thailand cannot use Paragraph 2 to produce a legal or territorial effect that Paragraph 3 expressly excludes.
“You cannot say troop positions do not determine the boundary, and then use those same troop positions to preserve a territorial situation,” he said.
The minister emphasised that the Joint Statement must be read as a whole, rather than treated as a menu from which each side can select only the provisions that serve its interests.
A Ceasefire Is Not a Title Deed to Territory
The minister underscored that where troops stood at 12:00 noon on 27 December 2025 cannot determine the international boundary between Cambodia and Thailand.
Military positions are temporary facts, he said, while international boundaries are matters of law.
He stressed that every post-ceasefire advance, installation of barbed wire or containers, construction of trenches, roads or fortifications, and development of infrastructure on Cambodian territory cannot create sovereign rights.
“Control by force does not create legal title,” the minister said.
He added that a fait accompli cannot become an international boundary simply because it is maintained over time.
Peace Must Rest on Law, Not Force
If Thailand genuinely respects the Joint Statement, Neth Pheaktra said, its practical meaning must be clear: no further advance, no creation of new facts on the ground, no consolidation of control through force, no obstruction of civilians returning home, and no use of temporary military positions as a basis for territorial claims.
The minister stressed that a ceasefire is intended to stop fighting and prevent changes on the ground that could later be used to alter the territorial status quo or create new claims.
He concluded that the core meaning of a ceasefire is simple: no advance, no fait accompli, no new border lines.
=FRESH NEWS
