Let the Border Be Settled Through Law, Not Rhetoric

Recent comments by Thailand's ambassador to the United Nations, Cherdchai Chaivaivid, about Cambodians living near the Cambodia-Thailand border deserve serious thought. They are less an occasion for political sparring than another reminder that both countries need to return to the legal and bilateral channels already set up to handle their border questions.

On September 28, during Thailand's Right of Reply at the 81st session of the UN General Assembly, Ambassador Cherdchai said that the Cambodians described as internally displaced persons had settled in areas first opened as temporary shelters in the 1970s, and he characterized their remaining there as encroachment on Thai territory. Thailand's Permanent Mission also repeated its stated preference for dialogue and diplomacy.

This raises a basic question: if Thailand is certain these areas lie wholly within its territory, why not let the Cambodia-Thailand Joint Boundary Commission finish its work through the agreed legal and technical procedures? That is the most useful question both sides could address, and the answer should come from the JBC rather than from unilateral declarations.

Let technical experts, not political statements, decide

Borders between sovereign states should not be settled by press remarks, political rhetoric, troop movements, or competing maps issued by one side. They should be established through the treaties, agreements, technical processes, and internationally recognized principles that apply to the two countries.

Cambodia has repeatedly asked for joint survey and demarcation work to resume under the JBC. In September 2026 it again urged the commission to begin survey and demarcation as soon as possible, pointing to existing bilateral agreements and the December 2025 Joint Statement. Cambodia says its position rests on the historical Franco-Siamese agreements, the relevant maps and records, the 2000 Memorandum of Understanding, the 2003 Terms of Reference, and other mutually accepted documents.

Thailand, for its part, has also recognized the JBC as an important bilateral mechanism. The commission's sixth meeting, held in Phnom Penh in June 2025, produced technical understandings on boundary pillars, joint survey work, and the use of modern tools such as LiDAR and orthophoto mapping.

The sensible way forward, then, is not to argue endlessly over which public statement sounds stronger. It is to let the JBC work. Where the location of a boundary is disputed, technical experts from both countries should examine the evidence together: the treaties, maps, boundary pillars, historical records, survey data, and other legally relevant materials. Conclusions should emerge through a process both sides have agreed to. That would do far more to prevent competing narratives from deepening mistrust between two neighbouring peoples.

International law as the shared language

Cambodia and Thailand are modern states, members of the United Nations and ASEAN, and both have repeatedly committed themselves to the peaceful settlement of disputes and respect for international law. The border issue should therefore be handled through legal instruments and agreed procedures rather than unilateral assertions.

Cambodia maintains that the land boundary should be settled on the basis of the relevant Franco-Siamese conventions and treaties, the maps and records connected with the original delimitation, and later bilateral agreements including the 2000 MOU. It has also stressed the principle that established frontiers are inviolable and that disputes should be resolved peacefully.

Thailand, meanwhile, has its own interpretation of the territorial and security questions involved and has argued publicly that certain areas claimed by Cambodia are Thai. Those differences are exactly why the bilateral mechanisms exist. A border dispute cannot be settled by each side repeating its own reading of the facts; it must be settled through evidence, law, negotiation, and jointly agreed technical procedures.

Dialogue has to be regular and produce results

The question of dialogue matters too. Cambodia has repeatedly called for border survey and demarcation to resume through the JBC, and Cambodian officials say diplomatic notes have been exchanged proposing meetings and the deployment of joint survey teams. In June 2026, Cambodia's State Secretariat of Border Affairs reported that several proposed activities had been postponed and urged the process to restart.

At the same time, it should be acknowledged that contact between the two sides has not stopped altogether. JBC discussions have been held, and as recently as September 29, 2026, the secretariats of the Cambodian and Thai Regional Border Committees met informally under the observation of ASEAN Observer Teams.

The real challenge is therefore not simply whether representatives meet, but whether those meetings produce concrete progress on the ground. A meeting that produces no implementation cannot build lasting confidence. Both sides should keep the established mechanisms meeting regularly, let agreed technical work proceed, and settle differences through direct communication instead of competing public narratives.

The human cost cannot be ignored

Behind every argument about maps, treaties, and sovereignty are ordinary people. Cambodian authorities report that roughly 20,000 civilians remain displaced and unable to return home in the affected border areas, and other official Cambodian accounts have described specific communities whose return has allegedly been prevented by developments on the ground.

Whatever the competing interpretations of territorial status, the humanitarian concern should be shared. Families should not become permanent casualties of an unresolved boundary dispute. If both governments genuinely want to rebuild trust, one practical confidence-building step would be to facilitate the safe, voluntary, and dignified return of displaced civilians wherever this can be done consistently with the ceasefire arrangements, security requirements, and applicable legal mechanisms. The aim is straightforward: once the necessary security and boundary arrangements are in place, people should be able to go home safely.

Trust depends on action, not words

Cambodia and Thailand cannot change their geography; they will remain neighbours. The question is what kind of relationship they choose to build. Thailand's own permanent mission to the UN has recently stressed that the two countries should pursue mutual trust, peaceful coexistence, and cooperation, and Cambodia has likewise repeatedly emphasized peaceful settlement through bilateral mechanisms and international law.

If Thailand maintains that Cambodian people are living on Thai land, then let the two countries' Joint Boundary Commission get on with its work. If Thailand says it wants to rebuild trust, then let it come to the table with Cambodia and turn words into action.