[Duterview] Politics, Not Just Maps: Dr. Kin Phea on the Roots of the Thai-Cambodian Border Crisis

Dunia interviewed Dr. Kin Phea, Director General of the International Relations Institute at the Royal Academy of Cambodia (RAC), regarding the ongoing border dispute between Cambodia and Thailand. He provided insight into the complex political calculations behind the crisis and proposed potential pathways toward a resolution.

What are the immediate causes and underlying political factors of the current Cambodia-Thailand border conflict?

On the surface, the direct causes are localized military skirmishes, conflicting interpretations of ceasefire agreements, and unilateral physical measures taken on the ground. However, deeper structural factors lie beneath. These include unresolved border demarcation issues, institutional mistrust, the politicization of border mechanisms, and the persistent influence of nationalist narratives and military interests within Thailand.

What is the legal legitimacy of Cambodia’s claims regarding the "1904 Franco-Siamese Treaty" and the "Dangrek Mountains Map"?

Under international law—specifically the principle of uti possidetis juris (respect for colonial boundaries) and rulings by the International Court of Justice (ICJ)—colonial-era treaties and their annexed maps carry significant legal weight. The 1904 and 1907 Franco-Siamese Treaties, along with the Dangrek map, remain legally valid reference points, a fact reaffirmed by the ICJ in its 1962 and 2013 rulings. "Effective control" on the ground cannot supersede legal title.

Some argue that these border tensions are intentionally manufactured to resolve internal political issues or to rally nationalism in both countries. What is your view?

That is a valid concern. Border tensions are often shaped by the political dynamics of elites, yet the human cost is borne by ordinary citizens and frontline soldiers. Historically, periods of political instability in Thailand have frequently coincided with heightened tensions on the Cambodian border, suggesting that domestic political pressures are being projected outward through border disputes.

Do you believe the relationship between the Hun Manet administration and the Thai government can lead to substantive peace?

It is possible, but only if political goodwill is translated into institutional action. Sustainable peace depends on strengthening formal mechanisms like the Joint Boundary Commission (JBC) and the General Border Committee (GBC) rather than relying solely on personal rapport. Crucially, the Thai military must grant the civilian government full authority to manage border issues in accordance with international law.

Recently, "digital nationalism" clashes between netizens of both countries on social media have become severe. How is this affecting diplomacy?

Digital nationalism accelerates mistrust and narrows the political space for compromise. In Thailand specifically, online actors are engaging in "information warfare" against Cambodia to strengthen their domestic political standing, which in turn restricts diplomatic flexibility. In this climate, scholars must play a stabilizing role by clarifying legal facts and promoting evidence-based dialogue to counter fake news.

Regarding the development of the Overlapping Claims Area (OCA) in the Gulf of Thailand, how should the balance between economic cooperation and sovereignty be maintained?

International practice allows for provisional joint development as long as it does not prejudice sovereignty claims. However, this requires robust safeguards, transparency, and mutual trust. Economic cooperation must proceed incrementally under the premise that it does not affect territorial sovereignty; economic interests must never undermine a nation's territorial integrity.

What is the most realistic solution for resuming border demarcation, which has been stalled since the 2013 ICJ ruling?

The most pragmatic path is to resume step-by-step technical consultations based on the 2000 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). This process must receive technical support from neutral third parties, be shielded from domestic political pressure, and be accompanied by a moratorium on unilateral physical actions. Whether a complete border map can be finalized within the next decade remains uncertain. The biggest variable is the influence of the Thai military, which often holds more sway over border issues than the civilian government.

What is your stance on the displaced persons near the border and the Thai military's recent maneuvers?

Both governments must urgently agree to establish a "humanitarian corridor" to ensure the safe passage and return of displaced persons, setting aside political differences. Furthermore, Cambodia views the container barriers and barbed wire fences installed by Thailand not as a legitimate exercise of sovereignty, but as an act of "fait accompli" that undermines trust. The Thai military’s airstrikes on facilities within Cambodian territory—under the pretext of raiding criminal syndicates—also constitute a cross-border incursion without consent under international law. No use of force can be justified in this manner.

Interview Seulki Lee skidolma@thedunia.org