BANGKOK: Air Chief Marshal Prapas Sornchaidee, Assistant Commander-in-Chief of the Royal Thai Air Force and director of the Thailand-Cambodia Joint Information Centre (JIC), on Monday (Aug 24) rejected accusations from Cambodia’s armed forces commander that Thailand was the aggressor, had violated the 2000 Memorandum of Understanding and had used heavy weapons in a brutal and inhumane manner.
Prapas said allegations of such seriousness must be considered against verifiable facts, a complete chronology of events and supporting evidence, rather than being repeated until they appeared to be true.
Anyone accusing Thailand of aggression, brutality or inhumane conduct must explain what happened, where and when it occurred, who acted first and what evidence could be independently examined, he said.
It was not acceptable to describe only Thailand’s response while removing the events that preceded it from the account, he added.
Thailand says BM-21 rockets struck civilian areas
Prapas said the complete sequence of events must be examined to determine which side initiated the violence.
Thailand did not want fighting and had no policy of invading or occupying the territory of a neighbouring country, he said.
However, attacks on Thai forces and the use of BM-21 rockets that struck civilian areas in Thailand, causing deaths and injuries, were facts that should not be omitted from the narrative.
“When Thailand’s people, personnel and territory are threatened, the country has a duty to defend itself,” Prapas said.
“Thailand’s use of force was intended for self-defence, to respond to and stop the threat, and to protect Thai civilians, personnel and sovereignty. It was not intended to harm Cambodian civilians.”
Joint statement called for forces to remain in place
Prapas urged Cambodia to revisit the joint statement issued on December 27, 2025.
He said its central purpose was to reduce tensions, maintain the ceasefire and prevent the situation from escalating.
One of its principles was that forces should remain in their existing positions. Neither side should move personnel or exploit the post-ceasefire situation to obtain a unilateral military advantage, he said.
Responding to allegations that Thailand had failed to respect the 2000 MoU, Prapas asked what evidence supported the claim.
He stressed that asserting territorial rights or publicly presenting a map based on one side’s interpretation did not automatically make the disputed area part of that country.
“Where the two sides continue to disagree over an area, the correct course is to use mechanisms mutually agreed by both countries,” Prapas said.
“One side cannot simply declare, ‘This is my territory, and anyone present here is an aggressor.’”
Civilian losses should not be used in information war
Prapas also warned against using civilian casualties as a tool in an information campaign.
Thailand regretted the loss of civilian lives on all sides, he said, but those losses should not be used to legitimise one party’s narrative while the other was branded brutal or inhumane without reference to the full sequence of events.
He said the international community should consider several key questions: who first used weapons, what weapons were deployed, where they were fired, what the intended targets were, how civilians were affected and what each side did to protect the civilian population.
Addressing the claim that “the world knows who is right and who is wrong”, Prapas said no party should speak on behalf of the international community.
A country confident in its account should submit evidence, a full chronology, coordinates and other verifiable information to the appropriate mechanisms, he said.
“Who is right and who is wrong is not determined by who speaks the loudest, who accuses the other side most often, or how many statements and social media posts are published,” he said.
Thailand calls for end to battlefield and media provocations
Prapas said any genuine effort to achieve peace required provocations to stop both on the ground and in the information space.
Thailand and Cambodia share a border and would have to continue living alongside one another, he noted.
“If there is a sincere desire for negotiations, provocations must stop, language that creates hatred must be reduced and one-sided allegations presented as fact must end,” he said.
Prapas questioned whether Cambodia was seeking negotiations to resolve the dispute or using the negotiating table as a backdrop for an information campaign while continuing to describe Thailand as the aggressor.
He concluded by restating Thailand’s position: both sides must observe a genuine ceasefire, keep their forces in the agreed positions, stop provocations and end the distortion of facts before returning to discussions based on evidence, law and good faith.
“Thailand does not want war and does not want anyone else’s territory,” Prapas said.
“But peace does not mean that we must accept allegations that are inconsistent with the facts. When Thailand’s people, personnel or sovereignty are threatened, we have a duty to defend them — and we will.” - The Nation/ANN
