On 12 November 2025, Thai soldiers reportedly opened fire on Cambodian civilians in Prey Chan village, killing one and injuring several more. For any country, such an incident would be alarming. But for Thailand, a signatory to the Kuala Lumpur Peace Accord barely two weeks earlier, this act raises even deeper concerns—not only about military conduct, but about the integrity of its commitments to regional peace.
Under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), intentionally targeting civilians is not a grey area; it is a war crime. Article 8(2)(b)(i) explicitly classifies as criminal “intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities.” The Cambodian villagers in Prey Chan were neither armed nor involved in any form of hostilities. They were simply caught in their own homes, in their own village.
To make matters even clearer, Cambodian troops stationed in the area had reportedly laid down their weapons as part of the post-ceasefire conditions. In such circumstances, Thailand’s claim of self-defense becomes not only implausible but untenable. When civilians are present, and the opposing military is unarmed, the act cannot be dismissed as a battlefield mistake.
Yet the political betrayal may be even more damaging than the legal one.
Under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), intentionally targeting civilians is not a grey area; it is a war crime. Article 8(2)(b)(i) explicitly classifies as criminal “intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities.” The Cambodian villagers in Prey Chan were neither armed nor involved in any form of hostilities. They were simply caught in their own homes, in their own village.
To make matters even clearer, Cambodian troops stationed in the area had reportedly laid down their weapons as part of the post-ceasefire conditions. In such circumstances, Thailand’s claim of self-defense becomes not only implausible but untenable. When civilians are present, and the opposing military is unarmed, the act cannot be dismissed as a battlefield mistake.
Yet the political betrayal may be even more damaging than the legal one.
On 26 October 2025, Thailand stood before regional leaders, including U.S. President Donald Trump and Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, and pledged to lower tensions through the Kuala Lumpur Peace Accord. The agreement outlined concrete steps: de-escalation, communication channels, and joint observer mechanisms to prevent exactly the kind of violence now unfolding on the border.
Instead of honoring these commitments, Thailand has taken the opposite path—refusing to release the 18 Cambodian soldiers it detained earlier, and now deploying force against civilians in violation of both the ceasefire and the newly minted peace accord. This is not just a breach of trust between two countries. It is a direct challenge to regional stability at a moment when Southeast Asia can least afford it.
For ASEAN, the credibility of peace mechanisms depends on member states’ willingness to follow through on their promises. For Cambodia, the stakes are immediate and human: communities living under the shadow of conflict, despite international legal protections that should shield them.
Thailand may attempt to frame this incident as a misunderstanding or an unfortunate necessity. But the facts point to something far more serious—and far more damaging. A country cannot sign a peace agreement with one hand and pull the trigger with the other.
If Thailand is committed to peace, now is the moment to prove it—through accountability, transparency, and a genuine respect for international law.
Author: Muyhong Kheang
No comments:
Post a Comment