After a ceasefire was imposed on the armed conflict between Thailand and Cambodia, the Thai government invited the international media and foreign military attaches to inspect the border areas affected by clashes.

Despite the ceasefire agreement on 28 July, the two countries have continued to trade accusations on who initiated the clashes and who has violated the ceasefire agreement. Meanwhile, an expert has warned that Thailand’s weak civilian government, dominated by the military, lacks a clear international strategy to resolve the crisis.

On 1 August, 150 representatives from international media outlets, 11 diplomatic representatives, and military attaches from 23 countries were invited to inspect the Thai border areas which were affected by the fatal clashes between Thailand and Cambodia.

This occurred after Cambodia took a proactive move on 30 September by taking envoys and military attaches to inspect border areas at the An Ses border checkpoint in Preah Vihear Province, opposite Chong An Ma in Thailand’s Ubon Ratchathani Province.

Royal Thai Army spokesperson Gen Winthai Suwaree revealed that the inspection tour was intended to bring nearly 200 international observers to inspect the impact of Cambodian military artillery used to target civilian facilities such as hospitals, schools, and gas stations.

According to the Royal Thai Government, the Thai authorities assert that the recent clashes were triggered by an initial attack from the Cambodian side, which has used long-range artillery to attack civilian facilities, despite the ceasefire agreement, saying that Cambodia violated the agreement and disseminated distorted information.

The Thai side also called on the international community to closely follow the situation with understanding and to help promote bilateral negotiations as a peaceful means to resolve the conflict, reiterating that Thailand has used restraint, and its self-defence was in line with the UN Charter and international law.

Thailand’s problem is its international strategy, not communication

Supalak Ganjanakhundee, an academic and former journalist focusing on ASEAN regional and international affairs, told Prachatai in his 2 August interview that in the current global narrative, both sides accused each other of violating the ceasefire agreement.

Supalak stated that it does not matter which side initiated the attack or violated the agreement. Thailand must take the initiative in proposing solutions, particularly in cases where bilateral and regional mechanisms are no longer effective.

In Thailand, the government was blamed for a failure in communication.

“In my opinion, many people analysed the issue incorrectly In that they focused solely on communication. I think that Thailand’s problem is a problem of strategy. We lack an international strategy. We do not know which direction we will take. We do not know what a better proposal might look like. So we ended up proposing nothing at all and instead shifted the blame to communication,” said Supalak.

The former journalist noted that this issue heavily involved internal affairs, particularly an intention to undermine the government. As a result, domestic political agendas took precedence over clear foreign policy objectives.

Meanwhile, Cambodia had a clear international political strategy and knew exactly where it was heading and what steps to take. Cambodia controlled and set the terms on the global stage, while Thailand merely tried to follow and protect itself.

The Thai military exerts power over the civilian government

In the recent clashes, we have clearly seen the dominant role of the Thai military. Many viewed that this incident has automatically granted the military power over the government. Earlier, Acting Prime Minister Phumtham Wechayachai said himself that military operations were under the military’s control.

How could the civilian government regain control?

Supalak stated that it may be impossible for the civilian government to regain control. He explained that this regime was considered a post authoritarian military leadership (เสนาธิปัตย์อำาจนิยม) coming after the authoritarian military leadership under former PM Gen Prayut Chan-o-cha.

Supalak noted that Thailand has an elected government, but it is weak. The military would take advantage of this weakness to gradually assert its role, initially dominating the management of national security strategies. This influence is then likely to expand into other areas.

The academic remarked that the situation can be explained through three dimensions.

Firstly, since the ruling Pheu Thai Party could not secure a landslide election and wanted to ensure the safe return home of patriarch Thaksin Shinawatra, it had to compromise with the old power elite, particularly the military bloc.

As a result, the principle of civilian rule that civilians hold supremacy over the military was not possible in this administration.

Secondly, the government allowed the military to exert full control over operations along the Thai-Cambodian border. As we have seen in the recent clashes, the military had full authority to take action without reporting to the government, especially the operation on 24 July.

Lastly, narratives from the military are dominating Thai society. It is evident in the mass media and the nature of news reporting. Supalak said he rarely sees reports of ordinary people’s lives along the border; instead, news reports emphasized narratives which came from the military.

He raised concerns that this influence will expand to all issues related to national security, which the public believe are completely within the military’s authority. Supalak remarked that currently, even civilians who are experts in military matters, including Professor Surachart Bamrungsuk, also face criticism and backlash from supporters of the military.