The need to save and protect human lives by evacuating population away from potential flash points or border regions or by exploring all available peaceful legal mechanism first is the right approach.
However, thinking that the other side will also willingly come to the negotiating table while they believe their more superior military mascle and de facto gains on the grounds remain unchallenged could be a grave mistake. Russia would not retreat or be willing to talk to Ukraine eventually unless the victimised party - Ukraine - is able to exert sufficient military pressure on Moscow to do so. The same scenario also applies in the Middle East. If the US and its Israeli ally could decisively defeat Iran through military force alone then there would be no room or necessity for 'talks' with Iran.
It's partly Cambodia's own neglect in building her own defence sufficiently to contain or neutralise potential foreign aggression in the first instance that encouraged Thailand's attack, and it is this perceived weakness of Cambodia to resist further military aggression or pressure by Thailand that still prevents Bangkok from resuming comprehensive JBC talks or recognising existing border treaties or boundaries as defined by the 1904 - 1907 Franco-Siam Treaties. What all this does show is that neither legality nor illegality - peaceful diplomacy/conventions vs. arbitrary military power - can be relied upon as repository or guarantor of lasting peace and of respect for each other's national territorial integrity.
Thus, the fundamental challenge for Phnom Penh (beside safeguarding lives) is how to bring enough pressure on Bangkok in order to coerce it to relinquish all Cambodian territory currently under Thai armed occupation and to make it think twice and hard before considering further future attack against its neighbour.
-Social media









