អត្ថបទវិភាគអំពីជម្លោះព្រំដែនរវាងថៃ និងកម្ពុជា ជាពិសេសនៅតំបន់តាមាន់ធំ តាមាន់តូច តាក្របី និងមុមបី។ ថៃបង្ហាញសំឡេងបែកបាក់៖ រដ្ឋាភិបាលស៊ីវិលចង់ចរចា និងសហការសេដ្ឋកិច្ច ប៉ុន្តែកងទ័ព និងក្រុមជាតិនិយមរឹងរូសបដិសេធដំណើរការច្បាប់ ពិសេសសាលក្រមរបស់តុលាការយុត្តិធម៌អន្តរជាតិ (ICJ)។
ថៃខ្លាចការទទួលស្គាល់សាលក្រម ICJ នឹងបង្កើតគំរូច្បាប់មិនអំណោយផល មិនត្រឹមតែសម្រាប់តំបន់ជម្លោះទាំងនេះទេ ថែមទាំងសម្រាប់តំបន់ផ្សេងទៀត រួមទាំងតំបន់ត្រួតស៊ីគ្នានៅឈូងសមុទ្រថៃដែលសម្បូរឧស្ម័ន។
ការភ័យខ្លាចនេះមានឫសគល់ពីនយោបាយផ្ទៃក្នុង និងអារម្មណ៍ជាតិនិយម ដែលផ្តើមចេញពីការបាត់បង់ខេត្តបាត់ដំបង និងសៀមរាប។ កម្ពុជាជ្រើសរើសច្បាប់អន្តរជាតិ ដោយផ្អែកលើសន្ធិសញ្ញា និងផែនទីប្រវត្តិសាស្ត្រ ដើម្បីការពារអធិបតេយ្យភាពដោយភាពស្ងប់ស្ងាត់ និងសមហេតុផល។
______
Borders, Truth, and the Future
Part 3: When the Response Is Loud—and the Truth Is Quiet
The border has reopened—partially. But the rhetoric is still rising. And the questions are growing louder.
Why is Thailand reacting this way?
To understand what is happening now, we must look carefully at the forces shaping Thailand’s response—both past and present.
_____
A Divided Voice from Thailand.
Today, Thailand is not speaking with one voice.
The civilian government, led by Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra, has expressed interest in dialogue and economic cooperation.
Behind the scenes, there are likely people in Bangkok who would prefer to solve this calmly and pragmatically.
But the military and hardline nationalist forces are louder, more rigid, and historically more suspicious of Cambodia.
They reject any legal process—especially one that might force them to accept an outcome they cannot control.
This is why we see mixed messages:
The government speaks of peace.
The army speaks of readiness.
Some officials call for negotiation.
Others shut the border.
That tension is not new. It reflects deeper political divisions inside Thailand—between democratic institutions and entrenched conservative power.
And it is in this fractured environment that Cambodia is being told:
“Talk—but not through court. Cooperate—but not with clarity. Resolve it—but not yet.”
_____
The Deeper Fear: Legal Precedent
At the heart of Thailand’s resistance is not just nationalism—it’s the fear of legal finality.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has ruled on this border before:
- In 1962, awarding Preah Vihear temple to Cambodia.
- In 2013, reaffirming that the surrounding land also belongs to Cambodia.
In both cases, Cambodia chose law. And in both cases, the ruling was clear.
Today, for Ta Moan Thom, Ta Moan Toch, Ta Krabei, and Mum Bei, Cambodia is asking the ICJ to confirm again what treaties and maps already show.
But Thailand no longer recognizes the ICJ’s authority. Because a legal decision, once given, cannot be negotiated. It must be accepted.
What Thailand fears is not the map—it’s the precedent. Because if the ICJ rules again in Cambodia’s favor, the pressure to comply will grow.
Not just in these four points—but anywhere else law is being resisted.
_____
It’s Also About Energy—and What’s Under the Water
What adds even more pressure behind the scenes is what lies offshore: natural gas.
In the Gulf of Thailand, Cambodia and Thailand have long disagreed over a stretch of sea known as the Overlapping Claims Area—an area rich in untapped energy reserves.
Beneath those waters lie potential reserves of gas worth billions of dollars. For years, both countries have discussed joint exploration—but little progress has been made.
Why?
Because some voices in Thailand fear that recognizing Cambodia’s maritime boundary—or even cooperating—could weaken Thailand’s position over the sea.
Some even raise alarmist claims that Cambodia might challenge sovereignty over Koh Kood, a Thai island near the maritime zone—even though Cambodia has made no such claim.
These fears are not legal. They are political.
But they fuel nationalist pressure in Thailand. And they feed the resistance to anything that might bring clarity—including a ruling from the ICJ.
So while Cambodia focuses on temples and treaties, Thailand’s internal debate includes gas, territory, and power—above and below the waterline.
_____
Where This Comes From
From 1795 to 1907, Thailand (then Siam) controlled Battambang and Siem Reap.
In 1907, through a treaty with France, those provinces were legally returned to Cambodia—and detailed boundary maps were created.
Those maps—used for decades without objection—are the foundation of today’s claim.
But for some in Thailand, those treaties remain uncomfortable. They are viewed not as law, but as a symbol of colonial weakness.
That discomfort fuels the emotional reaction we see today: a refusal to accept what was already signed, drawn, and ruled on—because of what it represents politically.
_____
I’ve Seen This Before
I’ve lived in Cambodia since the 1990s.
I remember 2003—when tension over a cultural misunderstanding led to riots.
I remember 2008—when the listing of Preah Vihear as a World Heritage site ignited outrage.
I remember 2011—when artillery echoed near the border.
And I remember 2013—when Cambodia once again turned to law, and once again, the ICJ ruled in our favor.
Each time, Cambodia remained patient.
Each time, it was Cambodia that took the higher ground.
And each time, I saw how powerful calm can be—when it’s backed by truth.
_____
Cambodia’s Answer
We chose law—again.
Not because it’s easy, but because it is just.
Sovereignty is not defended with slogans or border closures.
It is defended with evidence. With treaties. With truth.
We are not afraid of clarity. We are not afraid of judgment.
Because we know our case stands on history, reason, and restraint.
And we believe Cambodia must keep walking—firmly, and with dignity—even when the path is heavy.
Next: Part 4 – What Could Happen Next
#CambodiaAndTheICJ #BordersAndTruth #SovereigntyWithLaw #UnityInClarity #LeadershipInCalm
Source: Arnaud Darc
Borders, Truth, and the Future, Borders, Truth, and the Future – Interlude
0 comments: