‘If it walks like an invasion…’: Why language matters when discussing Thai occupation

Thai troops dismount from an armoured personal carrier in the Thma Da area of Veal Veng district, Pursat province in December 2025. Supplied

#opinion

All major dictionaries define the word “invasion” in the following general terms: The act of an army entering another country by force in order to take control of it (for example, the German invasion of Poland in 1939). Alternate variations describe an invasion as an incursion of an army for conquest or plunder or the encroachment or infringement of another’s territory.

Another term can be “belligerent occupation”, which refers to a more limited form of military incursion. Given the circumstances, while the Thai public may not want to hear their belligerent occupation of Cambodian territory described as an “invasion”, it certainly meets the required definition.

The Thai government wants to prevent its own public and media, as well as the international community and Cambodia, from using the term “invasion” to describe its current armed occupation and control over several areas of sovereign Cambodian territory. They want to prevent use of the term because it undermines the legitimacy of their conduct, which is inconsistent with the peace process.

It is important to remember that Cambodian citizens are being oppressed during Thailand’s partial invasion of Cambodian territory.

Businesses are effectively closed and daily life is conducted under the duress of armed foreign troops. Information about this egregious conduct is suppressed by a Thai government that is attempting to conduct this occupation in the shadows.

Make no mistake, this belligerent occupation is the result of an invasion. It serves as further proof of Thailand’s continued, open violation of the US and ASEAN-brokered peace process.

Youk Chhang is director of the Documentation Center of Cambodia (DC-Cam). The views and opinions expressed are his own.

-The Phnom Penh Post-