The guns have fallen silent along the forested Thai-Cambodian border for the past three weeks.
However, a heated war of words continues between the two nations, as each seeks international support and aims to bolster domestic backing. A prevalent sentiment in Thailand suggests they are on the losing end of this battle.
“The perception is that Cambodia has appeared more agile, more assertive, and more media savvy,” noted Clare Patchimanon on the Thai Public Broadcasting System’s podcast, Media Pulse. “Thailand has consistently lagged behind.”
The century-old border dispute escalated dramatically on the morning of July 24th, with a Cambodian rocket barrage into Thailand followed by Thai airstrikes.
Since then, an army of Cambodian social media users, supported by state-controlled English language media channels, have unleashed a torrent of allegations and inflammatory reports, many of which have been proven false.
They falsely reported the downing of a Thai F16 fighter jet, accompanied by images of a burning plane – which was later identified as being from Ukraine. Another unfounded claim alleged Thailand had deployed poison gas, illustrated with an image of a water bomber dropping pink fire retardant, actually from a wildfire in California.
Thailand responded with official statements, but these often took the form of dry statistical presentations from multiple sources, including the military, local government, health ministry, and foreign ministry, which did not always appear to be coordinated.
Bangkok has struggled to effectively communicate its argument that Cambodia, whose rocket attacks marked the initial use of artillery and resulted in the deaths of several Thai civilians, was responsible for the escalation.
The elected Thai government, led by the Pheu Thai party of controversial billionaire Thaksin Shinawatra, has a known strained relationship with the Thai military.
This was exacerbated in June when former Cambodian leader Hun Sen, a long-time friend of Thaksin, leaked a private phone conversation with Thaksin’s daughter, Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra. She had appealed to him for help in resolving border differences, alleging opposition from the Thai army general commanding forces in the area.
The leak triggered a political uproar in Thailand, leading to Paetongtarn’s suspension by the constitutional court and severely weakening the government just as the border crisis intensified.
Hun Sen faces no such challenges. While power has been technically handed to his son, Hun Manet, it is widely believed that Hun Sen, after nearly 40 years in power, still maintains significant control.
The army, the ruling party, and the media are firmly under his control. His motives for jeopardizing his friendship with the Shinawatras remain unclear, but it suggests preparation for a larger conflict over the border.
From the outset, Hun Sen consistently posted on his Facebook page in both Khmer and English, taunting the Thai government with photos of himself in army uniform or reviewing military maps.
Conversely, the most prominent figure on the Thai side has been the volatile 2nd Army commander, Lt. Gen. Boonsin Padklang, the same officer about whom Paetongtarn had complained. His bellicose nationalism has garnered him considerable support in Thailand but has also undermined the government’s authority.
“Hun Sen is very smart,” says Sebastian Strangio, author of “Hun Sen’s Cambodia,” a definitive account of his leadership’s impact on the country.
“He has employed the asymmetric tactic of exploiting existing divisions in Thailand. Cambodia’s adeptness at portraying itself as the victim has provided it with another potent weapon against Thailand on the international stage.”
Thai officials acknowledge the difficulties in countering the tactics employed by the Cambodian side.
“This is entirely different from previous information wars,” Russ Jalichandra, vice-minister for foreign affairs, told the BBC.
“Our statements must be credible and provable. That is our only weapon in this war. We must adhere to that, even if it sometimes appears that we are not fast enough.”
Thailand has consistently maintained that its border dispute with Cambodia should be resolved bilaterally, without external intervention, through the Joint Boundary Commission established by the two countries 25 years ago.
However, Cambodia seeks to internationalize the dispute, being the first to refer the escalating conflict to the UN Security Council last month. It has also requested the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to rule on the border’s location, presenting Thailand with a dilemma.
Thailand’s official reason for rejecting ICJ involvement is that, like many nations, it does not recognize ICJ jurisdiction. Equally important is the Thai collective memory of loss and humiliation at the ICJ, which lies at the heart of the border dispute.
Both Thailand and Cambodia have enshrined national narratives of unjust territorial losses.
Cambodia’s narrative revolves around a once-powerful empire diminished by war and revolution, at the mercy of its larger neighbors’ territorial ambitions.
Thailand’s narrative is more recent, involving forced territorial sacrifices in the early 20th century to avoid French or British colonial rule. When Thailand agreed to a new border with French-occupied Cambodia, it allowed French cartographers to draw the map.
Upon Cambodia’s independence in 1953, Thai forces occupied the Preah Vihear temple (Khao Phra Viharn in Thai), a Khmer temple perched atop a cliff that was intended to mark the border.
The Thais argued that the French cartographers had erred in moving the border away from the watershed, the agreed dividing line, thereby placing the temple in Cambodia.
Cambodia took the dispute to the ICJ and won.
The court ruled that, regardless of the map’s flaws, Thailand had failed to challenge them in the preceding half-century.
The Thai military ruler at the time was shocked by the outcome and initially wanted to attack Cambodia, but was persuaded by his diplomats to grudgingly accept the verdict.
Thailand’s sensitivity over its 1962 loss now renders it politically impossible to accept an ICJ role in resolving the remaining border disputes.
This has allowed Hun Sen to portray Thailand as defying international law.
Thailand is now countering the Cambodian narrative with a more effective one: the use of landmines.
Both countries are signatories to the Ottawa Convention banning anti-personnel mines, and Cambodia has a traumatic history as one of the most mined countries globally, for which it has received significant overseas funding.
Therefore, Thailand’s accusation that Cambodian soldiers have been laying new anti-personnel mines along the border, causing multiple injuries to Thai soldiers, presents an awkward situation for the Phnom Penh government.
Initially, Cambodia dismissed the allegation, claiming they were old mines left over from the civil war in the 1980s. The Thai government then took a group of diplomats and journalists to the border to showcase their findings.
Laid out on a table in the jungle, just a few hundred meters from the border, was a collection of munitions that Thai demining teams said they recovered from areas formerly occupied by Cambodian troops.
We were confined to a small clearing, demarcated by red and white tape. Anything beyond that, they said, was unsafe. On the drive in along a muddy track, we saw Thai soldiers in camouflaged bunkers hidden in the trees.
Among the munitions were dozens of thick, green plastic discs, about the diameter of a saucer. These were Russian-made PMN-2 mines containing a substantial amount of explosives – enough to cause severe limb damage – and are difficult to deactivate. Some appeared brand new and had not been deployed.
The initial images prompted Cambodia to dismiss the Thai claims as unfounded because the arming pins had not been removed.
However, we were shown other mines that had been armed and buried, clearly recently – not in the 1980s.
Thailand is calling for action against Cambodia by other signatories to the Ottawa Convention and is requesting countries that support demining programs in Cambodia to cease funding them.
They argue that Cambodia’s refusal to admit laying mines or agree on a plan to remove them demonstrates a lack of good faith in resolving the border dispute.
Cambodia has retaliated by accusing Thailand of using cluster munitions and white phosphorus shells, which, while not banned, can also pose a threat to non-combatants. The Thai military has acknowledged their use, but only, they say, against military targets.
Cambodia has also released pictures purportedly showing damage to the Preah Vihear temple, a World Heritage Site, caused by Thai shelling, an allegation the Thai military denies.
The constant exchange of accusations between both countries makes progress on their border dispute unlikely.
Hun Sen and his son have politically benefited from portraying themselves as defenders of Cambodian soil, but the conflict has exacerbated the political challenges facing the Thai government.
It has stoked intense animosity between Thai and Cambodian nationalists. Hundreds of thousands of Cambodian migrant workers have left Thailand, which will impact an already struggling Cambodian economy.
“Both sides are framing the border as a sacred dividing line between their countries,” says Mr. Strangio. “The symbolism is hugely important. This touches on very deep questions of national identity, and it’s something that neither side can afford to step back from at the moment.”
US President Donald Trump claims to have ended seven wars – is that true?
The Burmese curators of the show, which contained Tibetan, Uyghur and Hong Kong art, have fled to the UK.
Cameron Bradford, from Stevenage, is given a two-year suspended prison sentence by a German court.
Two young Brits have been jailed in Zimbabwe due to drug smuggling.
Trump’s new tariff rates have left many in shock but some countries fared better than others amid last-minute changes.