Cambodia Rebuts Thai Claims of 'Closed Door' on Dialogue, Cites UNCLOS as Last Resort

Thai Foreign Minister Sihasak Phuangketkeow recently claimed that Cambodia — not Thailand — had “closed the door” to bilateral negotiations on border issues by choosing to pursue proceedings under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). That claim deserves closer examination. Mr. foreign minister, before accusing Cambodia of abandoning bilateral dialogue, allow me to ask a few straightforward questions. Who cancelled the bilateral dialogue mechanisms between Cambodia and Thailand? Who rejected Cambodia’s repeated calls for a joint border survey? Who abandoned the 2001 Memorandum of Understanding? Who repeatedly suspended or dismantled the channels established to resolve disputes through peaceful negotiations? These are not rhetorical questions. They go to the heart of why Cambodia ultimately turned to UNCLOS. For years, Cambodia consistently called for peaceful dialogue and the use of existing bilateral mechanisms to resolve disputes. Yet those mechanisms were repeatedly suspended, cancelled or rendered ineffective. When the very channels intended to facilitate negotiations no longer function, seeking a peaceful resolution through international law cannot reasonably be described as “closing the door” to dialogue. UNCLOS exists to provide a lawful and peaceful means of resolving disputes when bilateral efforts reach an impasse. Choosing that path does not reject dialogue; it reflects a commitment to resolving differences through rules rather than confrontation. If Thailand genuinely remains committed to bilateral dialogue, as its foreign minister now says, then it should also explain why the mechanisms designed for that very purpose were allowed to break down. The real question is not whether Cambodia closed the door to dialogue. The real question is: Who closed it first? Neang Sopheap is a Phnom Penh-based geopolitical analyst. The views and opinions expressed are his own.