Cambodia Urges 'Constructive Solutions' in Maritime Border Dispute with Thailand

Phnom Penh – After listening to the opening statements of the Cambodian and Thai parties before the commission under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the public should understand clearly that the raising of numerous accusations does not mean that the legal arguments are stronger, stated His Excellency Net Pheaktra, Minister of Information. In its statement, the Thai party raised many issues, some of which relate to land border disputes, military incidents, and other political matters that are outside the topic. These raises can attract public and media attention, but they are not the core of the issues that the conciliation commission is tasked with helping the two parties resolve. Therefore, the Cambodian public does not need to worry or think that Cambodia must run to respond to all accusations. Many issues have already been raised and responded to publicly. The international community, international media, and various observers are also capable of examining the records, facts, evidence, and actual developments on the ground themselves. Cambodia does not need to compete on accusations. Cambodia needs to compete on arguments, laws, facts, and solutions. The conciliation commission was not established to determine which party can make stronger or more accusations than the other. The purpose of this mechanism is to help both parties find peaceful and implementable solutions to the deadlock of maritime border issues. At this point, Cambodia has shown a clear direction and a focus on solutions. Cambodia has put concrete paths on the table with the aim of achieving a solution that benefits the people of both countries and contributes to peace, cooperation, and common prosperity in the region. To achieve this goal: First, Cambodia intends to sign a treaty with Thailand, with the support of the commission and in accordance with international law, to define a single, comprehensive maritime boundary between the two countries. Second, as an alternative, Cambodia is prepared to sign an agreement with Thailand for joint development and equitable sharing of resources between the two states, pending a final agreement on maritime boundaries. Third, in the event that a final agreement cannot be reached on both maritime boundaries and joint development, Cambodia requests the commission to prepare a recommendation report for the two parties to use as a basis for negotiations to achieve these agreements later, in accordance with the obligations of both parties under the UNCLOS convention. This is the significant difference between competing narratives and seeking solutions. Accusations can create news headlines, but they cannot define maritime borders. Verbal attacks may attract attention for a while, but they cannot break a deadlock that has lasted for decades. What can lead to results are facts, laws, sincere negotiations, and implementable solution proposals. Therefore, the questions the public should ask are not, 'How many points has Thailand accused Cambodia of?' or 'Which party spoke more strongly?' The more important questions are: Which party has arguments related to the issues the commission is addressing? Which party stands on a legal basis? And most importantly, which party has put concrete solutions on the table? Cambodia has shown its options. Therefore, the next important question is: What concrete solutions does Thailand have on the table to move the parties out of the deadlock? At this stage, Cambodia should continue to maintain its calmness, discipline in communication, and focus on the case. Cambodia does not need to bring the discussion to a new battlefield simply because one party raises new accusations. The international community is capable of examining the records, evidence, and developments themselves. Cambodia's task is to present the facts, stand on international law, and continue to put forward implementable solutions. Not running to respond to every accusation is not a weakness. On the contrary, it shows confidence in facts, arguments, and legal processes, and maintains focus on the most important goal: seeking a peaceful, equitable, and internationally legal solution. For the public, a simple principle can be remembered: 'Do not count the accusations, weigh the arguments. Do not look at who speaks louder, look at who has a clearer legal basis and solution. Cambodia has put solutions on the table. The question now is: Can Thailand put concrete solutions on the table?'