For the past two months, tension has been brewing at the Thai-Cambodian border as the two countries enter another territorial dispute. On 24 July, that tension erupted into an armed conflict which resulted in civilian casualties and displacement on both sides.

On 28 July, five days after the conflict began, Thailand and Cambodia agreed to an unconditional and immediate ceasefire to take effect at midnight that night. Fighting continued for about half an hour after midnight before stopping.

While Thailand and Cambodia accused each other of violating the ceasefire, the Thai military announced that it had taken control of 11 locations along the border.

In a press conference on 29 July, Thai Armed Forces Deputy Spokesperson Rear Admiral Surasan Kongsiri, speaking as a spokesperson for the Ad Hoc Centre for the Thailand-Border Situation, said that Thai troops are in control of Phu Makhuea, Chong An Ma, Ta Muen Thom temple, Ta Khwai temple, the Chong Bok border area, Don Tual temple, Satta Som, Chong Chom, Chong Sai Taku, Preah Vihear, and Phlan Yao — all key locations in contested areas along the border.

However, the Thai military has gone back on its previous statement and admitted that it is not in complete control of Ta Khwai temple.

On 31 July, Army spokesperson Maj Gen Winthai Suvaree said in a press conference that Thai troops tried to take Ta Khwai temple before the ceasefire, but Cambodian troops had laid anti-personnel land mines around the temple, posing a significant obstacle to the operation and injuring one soldier. He said that although Thai troops had not secured the temple itself they have expanded control over the perimeter.

A fragile peace

But what does this mean for the peace achieved at the border? Supalak Ganjanakhundee, an academic and former journalist focusing on ASEAN regional affairs and international relations, said in a 2 August interview that it is problematic for the Thai military to claim that it has taken control of contested locations and that it might make negotiations more difficult.

Preah Vihear, for example, belongs to Cambodia under the International Court of Justice (ICJ) 1962 ruling, and in 2013, the ICJ also ruled that the cliff on which the temple stands also belongs to Cambodia. Supalak said that Cambodia might take the statement that the Thai military had taken Preah Vihear to mean that Thailand had ignored the ICJ’s rulings and violated Cambodian sovereignty. This could lead to future conflicts.

Ta Muen Thom and Ta Khwai temples, on the other hand, are areas under dispute, and Supalak said that documents relating to these sites are not in Thailand’s favour.

And Ta Muen temple is part of an area demarcated by Siam and France over a hundred years ago. Supalak said that documents exist detailing the locations of boundary markers and where the border is in relation to the temple. Even if the ridgeline changed with time, the temple’s location has not, and the border could be found by following the records.

Claiming to seize disputed sites might create a difficult atmosphere for future negotiations or demarcations, he said. If bilateral negotiation fails because Thailand is occupying the sites and refuses to consider any documents, logic follows that an intermediary must be brought in. Cambodia would like to bring the case to the ICJ, but Thailand rejected its jurisdiction and has not proposed an alternative. This deadlock could be a catalyst for future clashes.

Supalak speculated that the military on both sides might want to seize control of these locations before negotiating, and so clashes intensified in the final hours before the ceasefire. In his opinion as a civilian, however, this is not necessary.

”History has clearly shown us that territories are never won by occupation,” he said. “Otherwise, we would have already taken Preah Vihear. Our troops are more powerful than Cambodia’s, but in the end we didn’t get it, right? And we had to back down and live with the shame of having it go down in history that we are a larger country harassing a smaller one.”

Supalak stressed that Cambodia’s strategy of bringing in independent third-parties or an international court is a peaceful strategy. Meanwhile, he said, Thailand is contradicting itself when it says that it does not want an armed conflict but is rejecting the use of such mechanisms.

When asked if there is a political reason for both countries’ attempt to seize these 11 locations, Supalak said that it is likely, and more so for Thailand, which is facing an unstable political situation. Its civilian government is not standing up to the Army and ordering it to stop the occupation, he said.

Meanwhile, Cambodia is showing the world that it wants to resolve the border disputes through peaceful means. From bringing in observers to inviting Thailand to a GBC meeting, Cambodia had acted first.

“[Thailand] instead waited to see if it should go or if there are any conditions. Thailand should not present itself in that way while Cambodia is consistently showing that they are the side with initiatives to solve problems peacefully. The UN, the ICJ, ASEAN, all of these are just tools of diplomacy and international relations. They know that their military cannot compete with Thailand’s, and Thailand knows it too, but now the emotions of the Thai people are to ‘teach them a lesson’,” he said.

“These words are very dangerous. If anyone at an official level or anyone in the government says this, then Cambodia could use it to claim that Thailand intends to fight.”

Thailand always claimed to act in self-defense, Supalak noted. It has accused Cambodia of opening fire and attacking civilian locations, but once it has retaliated, a hospital has said that it will not treat Cambodian patients.

“It makes no difference,” Supalak said. “We said that Cambodia is the invader, but in the end, we seized 11 locations.”

Thailand’s problem, he said, is that it has allowed military framing to dominate its communication methods, while Cambodia is using diplomacy to frame its explanations. The Cambodian narrative is that it is a small country being invaded by Thailand and that it is trying to find a peaceful way out by using international mechanisms. Meanwhile, the Thai narrative is that it has an advantage, that it has a stronger military and can bomb Cambodia with its fighter jets.

“This is the Thai narrative. A lot of people are lost in these narratives,” Supalak said. “Even people who should have high ethical standards like doctors still use this narrative. They want to defeat Cambodia. They want to punish Cambodians who are sick. When you say things like this, people can tell what Thailand’s intentions are. They don’t look at what you say but look at what you do. Each side is saying that they are being invaded.”