Recent commentary on the Thailand-Cambodia border clashes has unfairly framed Cambodia as the aggressor, citing claims of “calculated build-up” and “escalatory events.” Such narratives, often amplified by unknown source, distort the timeline and overlook key facts, especially when the timeline is constructed solely from the author’s perspective.
The author’s revised timeline accuses Cambodia of provoking Thailand through infrastructure projects, ignoring the basic principle of sovereignty. Cambodia has every right to build roads or develop infrastructure within its own territory without seeking Thailand’s approval. To label such development as a ‘provocation’ is both baseless and disrespectful to international norms. Following the 28 May incident, Thailand continued using economic measures as a tool to bully Cambodia, while the leaked conversation between Thailand’s suspended prime minister and Samdech Hun Sen further revealed Thailand’s fragile domestic politics and its reliance on economic pressure against Cambodia.
Moreover, the timeline omits critical events, such as the ceasefire agreements Thailand accepted on 24 and 26 July 2025, which it subsequently violated. It also portrays Cambodia’s defensive mobilization as aggression since 29th of May, disregarding that any nation would reinforce its borders after one of its soldiers was ambushed and killed.
The world’s focus on the 24 July 2025 clashes should not overshadow the real trigger: the 28 May 2025 incident, when Thai troops crossed into Cambodian territory and killed a Cambodian soldier while he was unprepared and unarmed. The attack occurred far from the border, meaning Thai forces had to deliberately cross into Cambodia to carry out a sneak assault.
The claims that Cambodia planted new landmines are equally misleading. The landmines in question date back to Cambodia’s civil war, confirming that Thai troops must have entered Cambodian territory when they triggered them. Even the author admits that the mines date back to the 1990s, aligning with the period of Cambodia’s civil war, when such mines were originally laid. By definition, a civil war occurs within a country’s own territory, meaning these mines were planted on Cambodian soil.
Therefore, the Thai military’s presence in the area indicates that they crossed into Cambodian territory and accidentally stepped on the old mines.
It is disappointing that ASPI, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, has produced such a biased account, lacking both context and understanding of international law.
Author: Huy PanhaCHEZDA