The Diving Game and the "Talk and Take" Strategy: The Reality Behind the Veil of Friendship and Cambodia’s Legal Readiness

  

Opinion | Cambodia Insights
Guest Writer: Panhavuth LONG, Lawyer, PAN & Associates Law Firm 
4:06 PM, May 12, 2026

PHNOM PENH, Cambodia (CI) – In the chess game of regional geopolitics, nothing happens by chance. The return of Thaksin Shinawatra and the exploitation of the "brotherhood" bond, occurring exactly when the Bangkok government faces internal economic pressures and mounting tensions over the 2001 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU44), is not merely a matter of sentiment. It is a sharp, calculated strategy that demands Cambodia to analyze the situation with pragmatism, independence, and an absolute readiness in the realm of international law. Although the "diving game" metaphor suggests that Cambodia currently holds the upper hand and a longer breath than its counterpart, we must not forget a fundamental law of politics: "A cornered beast always reacts most dangerously."

1. The "Friendship" Card and the Danger of a Cornered State
When a country faces a severe economic crisis and urgently needs energy resources from the Overlapping Claims Area (OCA), it may resort to any strategy necessary. Using personal relationships and calling for peaceful negotiations is merely the initial "soft power" maneuver. If this persuasion fails to sway the firm stance of Cambodia’s leadership, the other side is likely to shift its strategy toward economic pressure, border provocations, or unilateral legal interpretations.

2. Brotherhood Bond vs. National Ideals: Cambodia Puts Sovereignty First
In the realm of politics and diplomacy, personal sentiments or a "brotherhood bond" can only serve as a lubricant to ease the atmosphere of communication; they can never replace or stand above national ideals. Any attempt to leverage private affection as a tool for psychological coercion in determining a nation's destiny is a gross underestimation of the other state's will and sovereignty. For Cambodia, the choice is clear and irreversible: regardless of how valuable a personal friendship may be, Cambodia will always choose to stand firmly on the principle of defending its sovereignty and territorial integrity first and foremost. National interests, legal authority, and the survival of a sovereign state are not commodities to be traded at the negotiation table under the pressure of the word "brotherhood."

3. The "Talk and Take" Strategy and Facts on the Ground
The hypocrisy of this diplomatic strategy becomes glaringly apparent when observing the actual actions on the ground. While persistently calling for bilateral negotiations using sweet rhetoric, the other side is simultaneously deploying massive troop reinforcements and accelerating the construction of border fences, as well as military and civil infrastructures, dangerously close to or squarely within the disputed areas. From a legal perspective, this is a "smokescreen" strategy and a deliberate attempt at "creating facts on the ground." The request for negotiation is merely a tactic to buy time and cool down international criticism, while military actions and infrastructure construction aim to establish an illegal "effective control" to gain a preemptive advantage in future border demarcations. This is irrefutable evidence of bad faith, which Cambodia absolutely cannot overlook.

4. The Rhetoric of Lawlessness: Is Thailand Acting as a Lawless State?
When evaluating a state's behavior, one must look at its concrete actions, not its words. A critical question must be asked: Is Thailand currently turning into a state that disregards international rules? The undeniable track record of territorial violations explicitly in August and December 2025 stands as indelible evidence of Bangkok's disregard for international legal principles. Continuing these unilateral actions while preaching "friendship" reveals a habit of using power and brute force to suppress the rule of law. Such actions reflect a state that treats international law merely as a tool to serve its interests when needed, and discards it when it wishes to transgress. Cambodia must not operate under the slightest illusion that it is negotiating with a partner acting in good faith.

5. The Imperative of Legal Readiness (UNCLOS & ICJ)
History has taught us that sovereignty disputes cannot be sustainably resolved through bilateral negotiations with a partner lacking sincerity. Cambodia’s most effective precaution is to rigorously compile documents and concrete evidence of these unilateral actions.
Cambodia must always be prepared to use the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and the rulings of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) as its defensive shield and strategic weapon. If the other party continues to use negotiations as a pretext for territorial expansion, Cambodia must have the courage to elevate these high-pressure bilateral talks to international arbitration bodies.

6. Internal Consolidation and Multidirectional Diplomacy
Strengthening Cambodia's unyielding stance requires absolute national unity. Any decisions related to natural resources and sovereignty must be transparent to prevent external information warfare that could divide the national spirit. Furthermore, Cambodia should continue to fortify multilateral diplomatic relations with other major powers to maintain a balance of influence in the region, preventing the nation from becoming a hostage in a neighbor's bilateral geopolitical game.

Conclusion
In international politics, as the saying goes: "If you know each other well enough to share a bedroom, you must also know exactly where the knife is hidden under the pillow." Knowing the true nature of your partner is one thing, but preparing your armor is an urgent and absolute necessity. Cambodia must not become so intoxicated by the pride of winning this "diving game" that it forgets to monitor the actual aggressive actions on the ground or neglects to strengthen international legal mechanisms. Patience in negotiation is a virtue, but preparing to strike back legally for the worst-case scenario is the true mark of national defense and the preservation of national ideals.