PHNOM PENH: Thai Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Sihasak Phuangketkeow (pic) claims that Cambodia, not Thailand, closed the door to bilateral negotiations by turning to compulsory conciliation under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, or Unclos. That claim reverses the facts.
Cambodia did not close the door to maritime negotiations. Thailand did — by unilaterally terminating the 2001 Memorandum of Understanding, the only mutually agreed bilateral framework specifically established to address the two countries’ overlapping maritime claims.
Thailand cannot destroy the negotiating framework and then blame Cambodia for no longer negotiating under it.
The sequence is clear. For 25 years, the 2001 MoU provided the agreed basis for discussions on maritime delimitation and possible cooperation over resources in the overlapping claims area. Cambodia did not withdraw from that framework. Thailand did.
Cambodia urged Thailand to reconsider. Thailand proceeded regardless.
Only after Thailand had dismantled the existing bilateral mechanism did Cambodia invoke compulsory conciliation under UnclosCLOS — a peaceful legal process to which both countries had already consented as parties to the convention. One cannot burn a bridge and then accuse the other side of refusing to cross it.
Thailand now argues that direct talks could still continue without the MoU. But an informal invitation to negotiate under new or undefined conditions is not equivalent to a jointly agreed framework.
A genuine bilateral mechanism must be bilateral not only because two parties attend, but because both parties agree on its legal basis, scope, procedures and continuity.
By terminating the 2001 MoU, Thailand removed that common foundation.
Cambodia cannot be expected to place its sovereign rights and long-term maritime interests inside a process that Thailand can redesign, suspend or terminate whenever its domestic political calculations change.
Nor is Unclos conciliation a rejection of negotiation. It is negotiation supported by law.
The conciliation commission hears both sides, examines their positions and proposes possible terms for an amicable settlement. Its recommendations are not binding unless the parties accept them. The purpose is not to impose a judgment, but to help the parties reach a negotiated solution through a structured, impartial and time-bound process.
Thailand itself has acknowledged that the process is non-binding and that its outcome can serve as a basis for further negotiations. It cannot therefore claim that Cambodia has rejected dialogue by choosing a mechanism designed precisely to facilitate dialogue.
Cambodia chose rules over uncertainty, law over pressure and conciliation over confrontation.
Thailand’s attempt to link the maritime process with the Joint Boundary Commission, or JBC, is equally misleading. The JBC concerns the land boundary under the 2000 MoU. Unclos concerns the maritime dispute following Thailand’s termination of the separate 2001 MoU.
These are different disputes governed by different legal instruments and different mechanisms.
There is nothing contradictory about Cambodia supporting the JBC for land demarcation while pursuing Unclos for maritime delimitation. The contradiction lies in Thailand demanding bilateralism while simultaneously terminating one bilateral framework and delaying another.
Thailand says its door remains open, yet it also says that JBC talks cannot meaningfully proceed until undefined security and confidence-building conditions are met. That is not an open door. It is a door Thailand claims is open while keeping the key.
If Thailand truly supports negotiation, it should act accordingly: participate in the Unclos process in good faith, resume JBC meetings without unrelated preconditions and stop shifting responsibility for the impasse onto Cambodia.
The facts answer the central question. Thailand terminated the 2001 MoU. Cambodia sought another peaceful and lawful mechanism. Thailand then accused Cambodia of closing the door.
Cambodia did not close the door. Thailand removed it.
By invoking Unclos, Cambodia opened a new door — one grounded in international law, guided by neutral conciliators and directed toward an equitable and mutually acceptable settlement.
Thailand should walk through that door in good faith instead of blaming Cambodia for refusing to stand before a doorway that Thailand itself dismantled. A Khmer proverb describes this tactic perfectly: “The monkey eats the rice and smears it on the goat’s mouth.” - The Phnom Penh Post/ANN
Roth Santepheap is described as a Phnom Penh-based geopolitical analyst. The views and opinions expressed are his own.
