Thailand Accepted UNCLOS Conciliation. So Why Is It Still Afraid?

Thailand Accepted UNCLOS Conciliation. So Why Is It Still Afraid?

#opinion

Thailand’s decision to accept Cambodia’s invocation of compulsory conciliation under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) should have been a positive sign. It should have demonstrated confidence, good faith and a willingness to resolve the long-standing maritime dispute peacefully.

But Thailand’s latest position tells a different story.

While Bangkok says it will participate in the UNCLOS conciliation, it now rejects Cambodia’s proposal to include joint resource development in that process. This contradiction raises a serious question: if Thailand is truly confident in its position, why is it afraid to discuss the very issue that has been at the heart of the dispute for 25 years?

The overlapping maritime area in the Gulf of Thailand is not only about lines on a map. It is also about resources, development, energy security and shared prosperity. For more than two decades, Cambodia and Thailand recognised this reality. That is why the 2001 Memorandum of Understanding existed. It was designed to provide a framework for negotiations over maritime delimitation and possible joint development.

Cambodia did not abandon that framework. Thailand did.

After walking away from the MoU, Thailand now claims that Cambodia should return to bilateral discussion and should not bring joint resource development into UNCLOS conciliation. This is not a principled legal position. It is strategic avoidance. Thailand dismantled the bilateral mechanism, then accused Cambodia of bypassing bilateralism. It accepted conciliation, then tried to narrow the scope of what conciliation can discuss.

That is not confidence. That is fear.

Thailand is not afraid of UNCLOS itself. Thailand is afraid of what the UNCLOS conciliation may reveal.

It may reveal that Thailand’s unilateral termination of the 2001 MoU was a strategic mistake. It may reveal that Thailand weakened the very framework it now says should be preserved. It may reveal that Bangkok wants international law only when it serves Thailand’s preferred narrative, but resists it when the process becomes balanced, transparent and independent.

For 25 years, both countries explored the possibility of developing resources together, drawing inspiration from the Thailand–Malaysia Joint Development Area. That example proved that neighbouring states do not need to wait for final maritime delimitation before cooperating. They can manage overlapping claims, share benefits and build trust while legal questions remain unresolved.

So why should Cambodia and Thailand not discuss a similar possibility?

If joint development was relevant under the 2001 MoU, it cannot suddenly become irrelevant under UNCLOS conciliation. If Thailand believed in shared prosperity for 25 years, it cannot now pretend that resource development is a separate issue with no place in a peaceful settlement process. And if Thailand truly wants to rebuild trust, it should not fear a discussion on how both peoples may benefit.

Cambodia’s approach is reasonable. It is asking for a peaceful, structured and good-faith process that can address the real substance of the dispute: maritime claims, legal uncertainty and the possibility of practical cooperation.

Thailand’s refusal exposes the weakness of its argument. Bangkok wants to appear cooperative by accepting UNCLOS conciliation, but it also wants to control the agenda, restrict the discussion and avoid accountability for its own unilateral actions. In other words, Thailand wants the image of good faith without the substance of good faith.

A rule-abiding state should not fear conciliation. A confident state should not fear independent discussion. A sincere neighbour should not fear joint development.
If Thailand believes bilateral cooperation remains possible, it should welcome every peaceful avenue to restore it. If Thailand believes the Gulf of Thailand can benefit both countries, it should not reject a discussion on shared resources before the discussion even begins. Thailand now faces a choice. It can participate in the UNCLOS conciliation sincerely and in good faith. Or it can continue to hide behind procedural objections while pretending to support peaceful settlement.

Accepting conciliation is only the first step. Acting in good faith requires more than just showing up. It requires honesty, consistency and the willingness to discuss the real issues.

Thailand says it is ready for UNCLOS conciliation. It should stop acting so afraid of it.

Roth Santepheap is a geopolitical analyst based in Phnom Penh. The views and opinions expressed are his own.

-Phnom Penh Post-