AKP Phnom Penh, September 15, 2026 --

Cambodian Minister of Information H.E. Neth Pheaktra has urged the public to focus on the legal arguments, facts and concrete solutions presented by Cambodia and Thailand rather than the number of accusations made by the Thai side during the first meeting of the Conciliation Commission under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

In a Facebook post on Tuesday evening, H.E. Neth Pheaktra said Thailand’s opening statement raised various issues related to the land border dispute, military incidents and other political matters that​ fall outside the core subject of the conciliation process.

The full post reads as follows:

“Do Not Let Accusations Distract Us from the Core Issue

After listening to the opening statements delivered by Cambodia and Thailand before the Conciliation Commission established under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), at the Commission’s first meeting on the morning of 15 September, the public should understand one point clearly: making more accusations does not mean having stronger legal arguments.

In its opening statement, Thailand raised a wide range of issues, some of which concerned the land border dispute, military incidents, and other political matters that fall outside the subject at hand. Such issues may attract public and media attention, but they are not at the core of the matter that the Conciliation Commission has been established to help the two parties resolve.

Therefore, the Cambodian public should not be overly concerned or assume that Cambodia must respond to every accusation made by Thailand. Many of these issues have already been raised and addressed publicly. The international community, international media, and various observers also have access to the record, facts, evidence, and developments on the ground and are able to make their own assessments.

Cambodia does not need to compete over accusations. Cambodia should compete on the strength of its arguments, international law, facts, and solutions.

The Conciliation Commission was not established to determine which party can make stronger or more numerous accusations against the other. The purpose of this mechanism is to assist the two parties in finding a peaceful and workable solution to the longstanding deadlock over their maritime boundary.

On this point, Cambodia has presented a clear and solution-oriented position.

Cambodia has put concrete pathways toward a solution on the table, with the objective of achieving an outcome that benefits the peoples of both countries and contributes to peace, cooperation, and shared prosperity in the region. To achieve this objective:

First, Cambodia seeks to conclude a treaty with Thailand, with the assistance of the Commission and in accordance with international law, establishing a single, comprehensive maritime boundary between the two countries.

Second, as an alternative, Cambodia is prepared to conclude an agreement with Thailand for the joint development and equitable sharing of resources between the two States, pending a final agreement on the maritime boundary.

Third, if a final agreement cannot be reached either on the maritime boundary or on joint development, Cambodia requests that the Commission prepare a report containing recommendations to the two parties. These recommendations could then serve as a basis for future negotiations toward such agreements, in accordance with the obligations of both parties under UNCLOS.

This illustrates the fundamental difference between competing over narratives and working toward solutions.

Accusations may generate headlines, but they cannot delimit a maritime boundary. Exchanges of political rhetoric may attract attention for a time, but they cannot break a deadlock that has persisted for decades. What can produce results are facts, international law, good-faith negotiations, and practical proposals for settlement.

The questions the public should therefore ask are not: ‘How many accusations did Thailand make against Cambodia?’ or ‘Which side spoke more forcefully?’

The more important questions are: Which party has presented arguments relevant to the issues before the Commission? Which party has grounded its position in law? And, most importantly, which party has put concrete pathways toward a solution on the table?

Cambodia has already presented its options. The next substantive question is therefore: What concrete and workable pathway is Thailand prepared to put on the table to help the two parties move beyond the current deadlock?

At this stage, Cambodia should continue to demonstrate calm, discipline in its communication, and focus on the case at hand. Cambodia does not need to allow every new accusation from the other side to open a new battlefield of public argument. The international community is able to examine the record, the evidence, and developments for itself. Cambodia’s responsibility is to present the facts, uphold international law, and continue to advance workable solutions.

Not responding to every accusation is not a sign of weakness. On the contrary, it demonstrates confidence in the facts, the strength of Cambodia’s arguments, and the legal process, while keeping attention focused on the most important objective: a peaceful and equitable solution consistent with international law.

For the public, the principle can be summarised simply:

‘Do not count the accusations; weigh the arguments. Do not ask who speaks louder; ask who has the stronger legal basis and the clearer pathway to a solution. Cambodia has put solutions on the table. The question now is: what concrete solution is Thailand prepared to put on the table?’”

By C. Nika