Cambodia Defends Maritime Conciliation, Urges Thailand to Implement Border Agreements

At the United Nations General Assembly on September 26, Cambodia's foreign minister Prak Sokhonn stood to address a wound that had opened between two neighbors. The recent conflict, he told the assembly, had done more than create a military standoff. It had damaged temples and heritage sites. It had left the ground itself dangerous—unexploded ordnance scattered across the landscape, a threat that would outlast any ceasefire. Most immediately, it had fractured the trust that holds any two countries together.

Sokhonn's speech was a response, though he did not say so directly. The day before, Thailand's Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul had taken the same podium and criticized Cambodia for abandoning bilateral talks in favor of a formal legal process. Cambodia, Anutin said, had not given dialogue "a genuine chance." Instead, it had filed for compulsory conciliation under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea—a move that, in Anutin's view, bypassed the kind of direct negotiation that neighbors should pursue.

Cambodia's position was different. Sokhonn called for the implementation of three existing agreements: the Kuala Lumpur Joint Declaration, the Fuxian Consensus, and a joint statement signed on December 27, 2025. Under that last agreement, both countries had committed to renounce force, respect international boundaries, reduce tensions, and work toward normal relations. The problem, from Cambodia's perspective, was not that these agreements existed—it was that they were not being honored. Sokhonn specifically urged the resumption of joint boundary demarcation work, the kind of technical, methodical process that could establish where one country ends and the other begins, according to international law.

The human cost of the dispute was concrete and immediate. More than 20,000 Cambodian civilians remained unable to return to their homes. Sokhonn attributed this to continued military occupation and obstruction of the territory Cambodia claimed. He called for these people to be allowed home and for any activities that might consolidate territorial claims—what diplomats call creating a "fait accompli"—to stop.

On the maritime question specifically, Sokhonn explained Cambodia's choice to pursue conciliation. Thailand had terminated the 2001 memorandum of understanding on maritime issues in May, removing what had been the only bilateral legal framework designed to address disputes at sea. With that framework gone, Cambodia had initiated the UNCLOS conciliation process. Sokhonn framed the first meeting of the conciliation commission, held in Singapore earlier that month, as an opportunity to bridge differences and rebuild trust.

Thailand's position, as Anutin had outlined, was that it was participating in the UNCLOS proceedings in good faith but preferred a different approach to resolving the broader dispute. Anutin had called for concrete cooperation on border security, online scams, and demining—practical matters that both countries faced. He emphasized that Thailand had never sought conflict and that peace required earnest work from both sides.

On one issue, at least, the two countries found common ground. Sokhonn identified online scams as a major national priority for Cambodia, noting that criminal networks operated across borders and required stronger international cooperation. He pointed to a conference Cambodia had hosted that week with international partners to address the problem. Anutin had raised the same concern, suggesting that border security and transnational crime were areas where bilateral cooperation might actually advance.

But the fundamental disagreement remained. Cambodia was calling for renewed land-border demarcation and compliance with ceasefire commitments, while pursuing maritime conciliation through the formal UNCLOS process. Thailand was questioning that choice and pressing instead for bilateral security cooperation along the shared border. Both countries agreed that trust had been damaged and that it needed to be rebuilt. They disagreed sharply on how.