07/26/2025
Thailand – Cambodia: A Conflict, an Image, a Culprit…
1.For the past two days, weapons have spoken on the border between Thailand and Cambodia. But in the global media, another battlefield has emerged: the battle of interpretation. And here, the verdict is clear. Thailand is widely seen as the aggressor. Cambodia, as the victim.
-Few direct condemnations have been issued. Yet, a consistent pattern emerges—loud, insistent. A glaring military imbalance. Strikes deemed excessive. Banned munitions reportedly used. And facing this onslaught, a Cambodia on the defensive, appealing to legality and restraint.
-In Western media, the tone is calm, but firm.
“Cambodia accuses Thailand of using banned cluster munitions and airstrikes, targeting civilian areas and cultural sites,” writes The Guardian.
A heavy accusation. International law, disregarded.
Reuters speaks of “the imbalance between the two militaries” and reminds readers that “Cambodia denounces the use by Thailand of cluster bombs.”
Disproportion is no longer an allegation—it is a fact.
Across the Atlantic, the message is the same.
-Associated Press reports: “Cambodia denies initiating the conflict, citing its military disadvantage, and accuses Thailand of aggression.”
Thousands of displaced Cambodians are highlighted.
-TIME Magazine goes further: “The Thai government, under pressure from nationalist factions, escalated the response far beyond what was necessary to secure the border.”
A political maneuver disguised as a military one. And above all, a disproportionate one.
In Australia, the words strike hard.
-The Australian writes: “Increasing military aggression, including Thailand’s deployment of F-16s, has resulted in civilian deaths and the displacement of tens of thousands.”
The figures speak. The consequences are human.
In Asia—outside of Thailand—criticism is more restrained, yet no less real.
-The Straits Times observes: “Thailand’s use of heavy aerial bombardment in response to relatively limited ground fire from Cambodia.”
Balance of power? Broken.
-The Star (Malaysia) notes: “Phnom Penh has downgraded diplomatic ties, accusing Bangkok of using excessive force.”
Diplomatic ties eroded. A call for moderation. A clear accusation.
On the Cambodian side, words are no longer measured—they indict.
-Phnom Penh Post headlines: “Thailand’s cynical border game: Provoking Cambodia while playing the victim.”
Thailand is painted as manipulative.
-Khmer Post Asia goes further still: “Thailand’s disinformation, blame game and aggression on the border are a threat to peace and truth.”
This is no longer just a military war—it is a media war.
-Cambodianess denounces: “Thailand is trying to conceal its hostile actions through a coordinated media campaign while slandering Cambodia over unrelated scam center allegations.”
Thailand, it seems, is muddying the waters—striking hard while posing as the wounded party.
2.An Aggressor Named, a Victim Identified
-Whether measured or incendiary, the media’s voice converges.
Thailand is cast as the instigator.
Cambodia, as the one who endures.
The media verdict—implicit yet unyielding—shapes a narrative. And in that narrative, the balance of blame does not exist.
——————————————
Thaïlande – Cambodge : un conflit, une image, un coupable…
1.Depuis deux jours, les armes parlent à la frontière entre la Thaïlande et le Cambodge. Mais dans la presse mondiale, un autre front s’est ouvert : celui de l’interprétation. Et sur ce terrain, le constat est sans appel. La Thaïlande est largement perçue comme l’agresseur. Le Cambodge, comme la victime.
-Peu de condamnations directes. Mais une série de faits répétés, insistants. Une asymétrie militaire criante. Des frappes jugées excessives. Des munitions interdites. Et, face à cela, un Cambodge en posture défensive, appelant à la légalité et à la retenue.
Dans les médias occidentaux, le ton est posé, mais ferme.
« Cambodia accuses Thailand of using banned cluster munitions and airstrikes, targeting civilian areas and cultural sites », écrit The Guardian.
Une accusation lourde. Le droit international, ignoré.
Reuters évoque « the imbalance between the two militaries » et rappelle que « Cambodia denounces the use by Thailand of cluster bombs ».
La disproportion n’est plus un soupçon. C’est une réalité.
-Du côté américain, le message est le même.
Associated Press rapporte : « Cambodia denies initiating the conflict, citing its military disadvantage, and accuses Thailand of aggression ».
On souligne les milliers de déplacés cambodgiens.
TIME Magazine va plus loin : « the Thai government, under pressure from nationalist factions, escalated the response far beyond what was necessary to secure the border ».
Une réponse politique, plus que militaire. Et surtout, démesurée.
-En Australie, les mots frappent.
The Australian écrit : « Increasing military aggression, including Thailand’s deployment of F-16s, has resulted in civilian deaths and the displacement of tens of thousands ».
Les chiffres parlent. Les conséquences, elles, sont humaines.
-En Asie, hors Thaïlande, la critique reste feutrée. Mais bien réelle.
The Straits Times constate : « Thailand’s use of heavy aerial bombardment in response to relatively limited ground fire from Cambodia ».
L’équilibre des forces ? Rompu.
The Star (Malaisie) note : « Phnom Penh has downgraded diplomatic ties, accusing Bangkok of using excessive force ».
Une diplomatie affaiblie. Un appel à la modération. Une accusation claire.
-Du côté cambodgien, les mots ne sont plus pesés. Ils accusent.
Phnom Penh Post titre : « Thailand’s cynical border game: Provoking Cambodia while playing the victim ».
La Thaïlande y est décrite comme manipulatrice.
Khmer Post Asia va plus loin encore : « Thailand’s disinformation, blame game and aggression on the border are a threat to peace and truth ».
La guerre ne serait pas seulement militaire, mais aussi médiatique.
Cambodianess dénonce : « Thailand is trying to conceal its hostile actions through a coordinated media campaign while slandering Cambodia over unrelated scam center allegations ».
La Thaïlande tenterait de brouiller les lignes. De détourner l’attention. De se poser en victime tout en frappant fort.
2.Un agresseur désigné, une victime identifiée…
Qu’elle soit mesurée ou virulente, la parole médiatique converge.
La Thaïlande apparaît comme l’élément déclencheur.
Le Cambodge, lui, comme celui qui subit.
Le verdict de la presse, implicite mais implacable, construit un récit. Et dans ce récit, l’équilibre des torts n’existe pas.
![[Op-Ed] Thailand’s recent military actions against Cambodia go far beyond a mere border dispute. They reveal a clear pat...](https://img3.medioq.com/003/386/1314504580033864.jpg)
