Fierce Words Keep Thailand and Cambodia on Edge Amid Border Tensions

he forested Thailand-Cambodia border have remained silent for three weeks, a fierce war of words continues between the two countries. Both are vying for international sympathy and attempting to rally domestic support, yet public perception in Thailand suggests the country is losing the information battle.

Cambodia’s Media Strategy

Since the escalation on 24 July, when Cambodia fired rockets into Thailand prompting Thai air strikes, Cambodia has employed an aggressive social media campaign. State-backed channels and online influencers have flooded platforms with allegations and inflammatory reports—many of which were later proven false.

For example:

• Photos of a plane on fire claimed to be a downed Thai F16 were actually from Ukraine.

• Allegations of Thai poison gas use were accompanied by images from a California wildfire.

Thailand’s response has been more bureaucratic, issuing official statements from multiple uncoordinated government sources, making their narrative less compelling internationally.

---

Political Complications

Thailand’s elected government, led by the Pheu Thai party of Paetongtarn Shinawatra, faces tension with its own military. This was worsened when Hun Sen, Cambodia’s former leader, leaked a private phone call with Paetongtarn, showing friction over the border crisis. This political scandal weakened Thailand’s government just as tensions rose.

In contrast, Hun Sen, though officially succeeded by his son Hun Manet, maintains strong control over Cambodia’s army, media, and ruling party. Hun Sen has leveraged this to portray Thailand as aggressive, frequently posting in Khmer and English on Facebook, taunting Thai authorities.

On the Thai side, Lt. Gen Boonsin Padklang, commander of Thailand’s 2nd Army, has become the public face of Thailand’s stance, often exhibiting bellicose nationalism. While popular among some domestic audiences, this has also undermined the Thai government’s credibility.

---

Historical Context

The Thailand-Cambodia border dispute is over territory shaped by colonial-era agreements and centuries of conflict.

• Cambodia’s national story focuses on loss and resilience after imperial decline and colonial pressures.

• Thailand emphasizes territorial concessions in the early 20th century to avoid colonial domination.

A key flashpoint is the Preah Vihear temple, claimed by Cambodia but occupied by Thailand in the 1950s. Cambodia successfully brought the dispute to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in 1962, cementing its claim. Thailand remains sensitive about ICJ involvement, both legally and politically, fearing domestic backlash.

---

Landmines and Military Accusations

Thailand has accused Cambodia of laying new anti-personnel mines, including Russian-made PMN-2 mines, along the border, causing injuries to Thai soldiers. While Cambodia initially dismissed these as leftover mines from the 1980s, evidence shown to journalists suggested recent deployment. Thailand has called for Ottawa Convention action and suspension of international funding for Cambodian demining programs until accountability is ensured.

Cambodia has retaliated by accusing Thailand of using cluster munitions and white phosphorus shells, which, while not banned, can harm civilians. It has also alleged damage to the Preah Vihear temple from Thai shelling, which Thailand denies.

---

Impact and Stakes

The ongoing verbal and political battle has intensified nationalism on both sides, disrupted migrant labor flows, and hindered progress on border resolution. Hun Sen and his son benefit politically from portraying themselves as defenders of Cambodian soil, while Thailand struggles to maintain domestic credibility.

Experts note that the symbolism of the border is as significant as the territory itself. As Sebastian Strangio observes:

“Both sides are describing the border as a sacred dividing line between their countries. This cuts to very deep questions of national identity, and neither side can afford to take a step back.”

With each side entrenched in its narrative, any immediate resolution appears unlikely, leaving the border region tense and the potential for renewed conflict ever-present.