Cambodia has lodged a fresh diplomatic protest against Thailand

 

 

 

Today, Cambodia has lodged a fresh diplomatic protest against Thailand, accusing Thai armed forces of undertaking activities in disputed border areas that Cambodia says contradict recent commitments to de-escalate tensions.

 

The wording of Cambodia’s statement is notable for its legal precision. By describing the areas as “occupied,” Cambodia signals that these areas are not under disputed administration but remain Cambodian territory under international law. By warning that sovereignty and territorial integrity are being undermined, Cambodia aligns its language with core principles of the United Nations Charter, particularly the prohibition on changing borders by force. References to existing agreements and international law suggest an effort to document events carefully rather than escalate tensions. This approach keeps the dispute framed within legal and diplomatic channels, even as conditions on the ground remain contested.

 

In a press release issued on 21 January 2026, Cambodia’s foreign ministry said the actions, which allegedly took place on 19 January, were inconsistent with de-escalation measures agreed under a joint statement from the General Border Committee (GBC) meeting held late last year. The ministry described these incidents as undermining Cambodia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

According to the statement, Thai forces installed a Buddha statue at a site in Preah Vihear province where a statue of the Hindu god Vishnu had previously stood before being destroyed. The ministry also cited the placement of shipping containers to block road access and the construction of bunkers using heavy machinery in parts of Banteay Meanchey province.

 

 

 

While none of the reported actions involved direct clashes, Cambodian officials said they changed conditions on the ground during a period meant for de-escalation. Measures such as building infrastructure and restricting access are often seen by regional analysts as having longer-term effects beyond their immediate military purpose.

 

At the same time, Cambodia reiterated its commitment to resolving border and boundary issues peacefully and in accordance with international law, emphasizing the principle that borders must not be changed by force. The language mirrors formulations Cambodia has used in past disputes, underscoring its preference for legal and diplomatic channels over confrontation.

 

Ultimately, Cambodia’s protest points to a broader dilemma common to fragile ceasefires: stopping gunfire alone does not guarantee stability. When physical barriers are erected, access is restricted, and terrain is altered during a period meant for de-escalation, the risk is that a ceasefire freezes not peace, but advantage. In such situations, restraint is measured not only by the absence of clashes, but by whether parties refrain from actions that quietly reshape realities on the ground. How this principle is observed may determine whether the current calm along the border develops into genuine confidence, or merely masks a more lasting imbalance.