Critique of ‘Thailand-Cambodia conflict: legacy politics and premeditated escalation’
Critique of ‘Thailand-Cambodia conflict: legacy politics and premeditated escalation’
In periods of heightened tension, particularly in longstanding border disputes, analysis must be anchored in objectivity, legal context, and a balanced presentation of facts. While the recent article by Angela Suriyasenee and Nathan Ruser, “Thailand-Cambodia conflict: legacy politics and premeditated escalation,” offers timely reflections on a sensitive issue, it regrettably falls short in several key areas that warrant closer scrutiny and clarification.
First, framing Cambodia’s infrastructure development as a mere military pretext, as described in the article as “shifting facts on the ground under the pretence of civilian or infrastructure development,” without evidence, context, or Cambodian input, reflects a biased and reductive approach. In reality, road upgrades in Preah Vihear are part of Cambodia’s broader national development agenda to improve connectivity, boost local economies, promote tourism, and expand access to essential services in historically underserved areas. Credible analysis should consider the civilian and developmental dimensions of such efforts, rather than reducing a legitimate and long-standing national undertaking to an overly simplistic and misleading narrative.
Second, border disputes are not merely matters of military positioning or political tension; they are fundamentally governed by binding legal agreements and international rulings. The article neglects key legal instruments central to understanding the Cambodia-Thailand border dispute, including the 2000 Memorandum of Understanding on the Survey and Demarcation of Land Boundary (MOU 2000), which explicitly prohibits unilateral actions in undemarcated areas, and the International Court of Justice’s 1962 and 2013 rulings affirming Cambodia’s sovereignty over the Preah Vihear Temple vicinity. Disregarding these legal foundations, which both parties are obliged to respect, strips the conflict of its proper context and distorts the basis for assessing actions and responsibilities on the ground.
Third, claiming that Cambodia escalated the conflict for domestic political gain, such as bolstering its leadership’s image, rests on speculation rather than substantiated evidence. The article oversimplifies a longstanding territorial dispute rooted in historical grievances, legal complexities, and national security concerns, while singling out Cambodia and largely overlooking how Thailand’s domestic political instability may have contributed to the escalation. An impartial assessment requires applying equal scrutiny to both sides and grounding conclusions in verified facts rather than speculation.
Fourth, the article’s treatment of civilian casualties is notably one-sided, emphasising harm to Thai civilians, such as “killing civilians and damaging infrastructure, including schools and hospitals”, while offering no comparable detail on Cambodian civilian suffering. Although it briefly states that “at least 35 were killed and many more injured on both sides,” it provides no breakdown or accounts from the Cambodian side. This selective depiction creates a skewed humanitarian narrative and underrepresents the human costs borne by both sides amid cross-border violence.
Fifth, presenting the F-16 strikes as merely “to secure the eastern front” overlooks the fact that deploying fighter jets, particularly advanced multirole combat aircraft like the F-16, represents a significant escalation in force. In modern conflict analysis, such use of airpower is rarely considered a routine defensive measure, especially in localised land disputes. Describing the airstrikes as such downplays the severity and implications of deploying combat aircraft against ground forces, marking a clear escalation in what had, until then, been primarily a ground-based confrontation.
Finally, and perhaps most concerning, the article references an “open-source dataset” alleging a significantly higher number of escalatory acts by Cambodia compared to Thailand. However, it does not explain the underlying methodology or answer fundamental questions: What qualifies as an “escalatory act”? How were incidents verified, categorised, and sourced? Were both sides assessed using consistent criteria? What was the timeframe of the data collection? Did the dataset include only military actions, or also verbal threats and other forms of escalation? In the absence of such clarity, readers are left unable to evaluate the data’s validity, scope, or limitations. This lack of transparency risks reducing the figures to rhetorical instruments rather than objective analytical evidence.
On sensitive territorial disputes such as that between Cambodia and Thailand, meaningful discourse must be grounded in verified facts, established legal frameworks, and impartial assessment of the conduct of the parties. Where claims intersect with history and national identity, careful and balanced analysis is essential, not only to maintain analytical integrity but also to contribute to peaceful resolution and reinforce respect for international law.
The author is a Visiting Fellow at Harvard University Asia Centre. The views expressed here are the author’s own. Khmer Times
