Cambodia PR Team Responses Regarding the Thai Senate President’s Statement August 31, 2026

Cambodia PR Team Responses
Regarding the Thai Senate President’s Statement
August 31, 2026

Q1: Can Thailand use the ceasefire as a basis to establish new territorial rights or to legitimize the illegal military control over disputed areas?

A: No, it cannot. The ceasefire was established for the purpose of halting armed hostilities, not to determine territorial boundaries. This is precisely why Point 3 of the ceasefire agreement explicitly states that the agreement does not affect the international border line between the two countries, and both parties have agreed to task the Joint Boundary Commission (JBC) with resuming border survey work. This is the key point that must be implemented. Therefore, Thailand cannot selectively use only one point to establish new territorial rights or to legitimize its illegal occupation while disregarding other provisions. Sovereignty and border issues must be resolved in accordance with treaties, agreements, international law, and peaceful dispute resolution mechanisms.

Q2: Is it true, as Thailand alleges, that Cambodia intends to internationalize the Cambodia-Thailand border dispute?

A: No, it is not. Cambodia has no intention of internationalizing the bilateral dispute. The responsible use of regional and international mechanisms is a means to help reduce tensions, enhance clarity, and seek a peaceful and lawful resolution.

Therefore, if Thailand seeks to avoid international scrutiny, the solution should begin with restoring respect for Cambodia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and peacefully resolving outstanding issues through existing mechanisms—in particular, the expeditious implementation of Point 3 of the Joint Statement of December 27, 2025, as the Cambodian side has frequently proposed.

Q3: What is Cambodia’s stance on Thailand’s claim that Cambodia fired first and that Thailand’s actions were within the framework of self-defense?

A: This is merely a unilateral assertion by the Thai side. It is neither true nor plausible. By examining even a brief history of the situation, one can clearly understand who provoked first. Cambodia is a small country and a victim of violations that are evident to all and cannot reasonably be denied. As a victim, Cambodia has always been open to observation missions to seek the truth, but it is the Thai side that has consistently failed to cooperate and has repeatedly made baseless accusations against Cambodia. Determining which party used force first and whether any action falls within the framework of self-defense should be based on verifiable facts and evidence, not on the unilateral claims of any single party.

Q4: How does Cambodia view Thailand’s use of security concerns and the need to combat cross-border crime as justifications for military actions and the alteration of the situation along the border?

A: Cambodia acknowledges that combating cross-border crime is necessary and requires cooperation between countries. However, the fight against cross-border crime cannot be used as a pretext for using force or violating the sovereignty and territorial integrity of another state. Security cooperation must respect international law and should not lead to the creation of new facts on the ground for the purpose of occupying another country’s territory.