09/10/2025
Ultimatums Are Not Diplomacy: Why Thailand’s Pre-Conditions Threaten Peace and ASEAN Stability
When Thai Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul declared that Thailand would not engage in dialogue with Cambodia until Phnom Penh “withdraws its troops,” “removes invaders,” and “cleans up Thai soil,” he was not charting a path toward peace. He was setting the stage for confrontation.
The language of ultimatum is the language of coercion — not diplomacy — and it risks transforming a manageable border disagreement into a destabilizing regional conflict.
Anutin’s remarks, reported by The Nation Thailand on October 8, may have been aimed at satisfying domestic audiences who crave nationalist posturing. But strong words do not make strong statesmanship. They make compromise harder, diplomacy narrower, and peace more distant. And they spread a dangerous falsehood — Cambodia is not an invader, not a threat, and not the cause of tension. Phnom Penh’s policy has been one of restraint and responsibility, grounded in international law and peaceful coexistence.
The Legal Border Was Settled a Century Ago
The border between Cambodia and Thailand is not a mystery left to modern politicians to reinterpret. It was legally defined more than a century ago by the Franco-Siamese Convention of 1904 and the Treaty of 1907 — agreements that both countries accepted and which remain binding under international law. The map attached to those treaties was submitted to and recognized by the League of Nations and later the United Nations.
To disregard those treaties or suggest that the border is undefined is to defy legal history itself. No amount of rhetoric can rewrite the obligations that both states inherited. Cambodia continues to uphold those treaties and insists that demarcation proceed through the bilateral Joint Boundary Commission — not through unilateral action or military intimidation. International law, not domestic emotion, defines where the border stands — and that law is clear.
Weaponizing Nationalism and the “Invader” Narrative
When Prime Minister Anutin labels Cambodian civilians as “invaders,” he crosses from diplomacy into demagoguery. The Cambodian villagers of Chork Chey and Prey Chan — whose homes and farms lie near the border — are not pawns of aggression. They are families who have lived there for generations. Yet Thailand’s recent decision to install new barbed wire and issue demands for their “evacuation” effectively criminalizes their existence.
Such moves, coupled with inflammatory language, erode trust and invite miscalculation. Cambodia has never violated Thailand’s sovereignty nor threatened its people. Its armed forces have remained within Cambodian territory, performing defensive duties and protecting its own citizens. To distort this reality for political gain is to sacrifice truth for theater. The notion that Cambodia must “withdraw” from its own land before talks can begin reveals a troubling inversion of diplomacy: a neighbor issuing demands as if the border were its bargaining chip.
Pre-Conditions Guarantee Deadlock, Not Peace
Diplomacy with pre-conditions is diplomacy designed to fail. International experience — from the Korean Peninsula to the South China Sea — shows that rigid “you must comply first” approaches only prolong disputes. Peaceful resolution requires mutual confidence-building, not pre-emptive surrender.
Cambodia has never refused dialogue. It has repeatedly called for technical discussions, legal demarcation, and even third-party observation if necessary. Amid this tension, global leaders have begun to pay attention. U.S. President Donald Trump recently proposed a ceasefire initiative and expressed willingness to serve as chair of a broader ASEAN-led peace process to prevent escalation along the Cambodia–Thailand frontier. This call reflects a growing international concern — that what began as a border management issue could spiral into regional instability if diplomacy gives way to pride.
Domestic Politics in the Guise of Patriotism
Thailand’s border flare-ups often coincide with moments of internal turbulence. When governments face instability or loss of legitimacy, nationalist narratives provide an easy diversion. The language of “defending sovereignty” becomes a domestic survival tool, even at the expense of truth and neighborly relations.
But short-term political theatrics carry long-term costs. They weaken Thailand’s image as a credible actor in ASEAN and erode the region’s commitment to peaceful dispute resolution. At a time when ASEAN unity is already under strain, weaponizing border rhetoric only fuels mistrust across Southeast Asia.
Cambodia’s Approach: Law, Not Force
Phnom Penh’s stance remains consistent: all border questions must be resolved through law and dialogue. Cambodia has refrained from escalation, respected the 2000 Memorandum of Understanding, and maintained channels of communication even amid provocations. The Cambodian government’s restraint demonstrates maturity — and its insistence on legality shows confidence, not weakness.
Behind the political statements, ordinary people are the ones who suffer. The Cambodian villagers of Chork Chey and Prey Chan have become hostages to rhetoric they did not create. Their livelihoods have been disrupted not by “invasion,” but by Thai misplaced nationalism and military overreach.
A Choice Between Reason and Rhetoric
Thailand now faces a choice: it can continue to frame diplomacy as a contest of pride, or it can re-embrace the principles of law, dialogue, and regional harmony. Real leadership does not come from issuing threats or drawing lines in the sand; it comes from sitting across the table and finding common ground. Peace requires courage — the courage to talk, to listen, and to accept the truths written not by politicians, but by history and law.
Cambodia is not the aggressor; it is the advocate of peace. The world is watching closely — and the calls for a ceasefire, including President Trump’s proposed ASEAN-led initiative, underline one universal truth: every life lost to political theater is a life wasted. If Thailand truly seeks peace, it must drop the pre-conditions and return to dialogue. The line that needs redrawing today is not on the map, but in the mindset — between reason and rhetoric, between leadership and brinkmanship.
Roth Santepheap is a geopolitical analyst based in Phnom Penh. The views expressed are his own.
