Minister of Information Neth Pheaktra has challenged repeated Thai assertions that its military operations against Cambodia targeted only military objectives. He pointed to civilian deaths, damaged homes, religious and cultural sites, mass displacement and unexploded cluster munitions as evidence that claimed warrant independent scrutiny under international humanitarian law.
In a lengthy August 14 statement, the minister noted that Thailand’s repeated assurances that its military operations complied with international humanitarian law and were restricted to military targets should be measured against evidence and the consequences recorded on the ground during two rounds of fighting in July and December 2025.
“A claim does not become true merely because it is repeated again and again,” he said.
“It must be tested against facts, evidence, the types of weapons used, the locations attacked and the actual consequences for civilians,” he added.
He questioned how homes, villages, religious sites, civilian infrastructure and cultural heritage sites came to suffer damage if Thai operations had been confined to military objectives.
The minister’s comments directly challenge a defence repeatedly advanced by Thai authorities during the border conflict.
During a December 8, 2025 diplomatic briefing, the Thai Ministry of Foreign Affairs said its military operations were undertaken in self-defence, complied with international law and were limited to military targets, with consideration given to preventing civilian harm. Thai foreign minister Sihasak Phuangketkeow said Thailand was responding to Cambodian attacks under the principles of necessity and proportionality.
Thailand repeated that position on December 15, accusing Cambodia of attacks against Thai civilian areas while saying Thai military actions were conducted “exclusively against Cambodian military objectives”.
Pheaktra, however, argued that describing a location as a military objective did not automatically establish that an attack against it was lawful.
He suggested that the legality of individual strikes should be assessed by determining whether the targets qualified as military objectives, whether the weapons used were appropriate to the circumstances, whether feasible precautions were taken to minimise civilian harm and whether expected civilian damage was proportionate to the anticipated military advantage.
The minister pointed to the use of F-16 fighter jets, artillery, rockets and other heavy weapons during the fighting as particularly relevant to such an assessment.
Following the July clashes, Human Rights Watch (HRW) reported that Thai armed forces deployed F-16 fighter jets and drones for airstrikes, along with artillery and rocket fire, while noting that Cambodian forces also used rockets and artillery.
HRW geolocated photographs showing structural damage to a building and a Buddhist pagoda in Kok Mon commune in Oddar Meanchey province. Cambodian officials at the time reported that a civilian was killed after a Thai projectile struck a pagoda where he had sought shelter.
Pheaktra also cited Cambodian submissions to the UN Security Council which said bombs dropped by Thai F-16s struck the compound of Ta Moan Senchey pagoda on July 24, killing a Buddhist priest, and that further airstrikes were carried out the following day, including around Ta Krabei Temple.
He argued that the consequences of heavy weapons cannot be assessed solely by identifying the point at which they were aimed, because their effects can extend beyond an intended target.
“The consequences extend far beyond immediate deaths and injuries,” he said, pointing to damage to buildings, disruption of health and education services, infrastructure and cultural heritage, as well as displacement.
Cluster munitions raise further questions
Pheaktra placed particular emphasis on Thailand’s acknowledged use of cluster munitions during the July 2025 fighting.
Thailand initially rejected Cambodian accusations over the weapons, but the Royal Thai Army subsequently acknowledged their use, saying they were employed when necessary against military objectives and in accordance with the principle of proportionality.
HRW has taken a different legal position, saying the use of cluster munitions in populated areas is unlawfully indiscriminate. Neither Cambodia nor Thailand is a party to the Convention on Cluster Munitions.
Cluster munitions disperse multiple smaller submunitions over a wide area, some of which may fail to explode on impact and remain dangerous long after fighting ends.
Pheaktra highlighted the October 25, 2025, death of 10-year-old Sern Sovann in Preah Vihear province.
According to HRW, the boy was killed after bringing home a cluster munition bomblet from a nearby field that subsequently exploded, seriously injuring his father as well.
The Cambodian Mine Action Centre (CMAC) identified the explosive as an unexploded M-85 artillery-delivered submunition which it said had been fired into Cambodia by Thai forces during the July fighting.
The Thai military disputed CMAC’s conclusion, arguing that photographs of the explosion’s effects were inconsistent with the cluster munitions in its stockpile.
HRW subsequently called for the boy’s death to be investigated by a competent and impartial international body.
Pheaktra said the case demonstrated that the consequences of cluster munitions “do not end when the guns fall silent”.
December fighting brought mass displacement
The minister also pointed to the scale of civilian displacement when fighting resumed in December 2025.
A December 27 report by Cambodia’s Humanitarian Response Forum, prepared with UN agencies and humanitarian partners, recorded heavy artillery exchanges and reports of F-16 fighter jets, drones and other weapons being used “including in and around populated areas”.
The report recorded 644,589 displaced people, including 336,302 women and 204,992 children. It also recorded 30 civilian deaths and 88 injuries at that point. More than 1,300 schools were forced to close, affecting an estimated 322,103 students.
Cambodia’s Ministry of Interior reported 32 civilian deaths and 94 injuries from the December fighting. Damage was reported to homes, schools, health facilities, roads, bridges, electricity infrastructure and religious and cultural sites.
A UN socio-economic assessment released in April this year said Cambodia experienced two major waves of conflict-induced displacement in 2025. More than 172,000 people were displaced following the July escalation, while the renewed hostilities in December generated a much larger second wave, peaking at nearly 645,000 people.
Evidence of civilian destruction also emerged following the July fighting. The Associated Press reported from Oddar Meanchey that returning Cambodian villagers found homes and property burned or otherwise damaged after fleeing the fighting.
Pheaktra said civilian homes, schools, hospitals, religious sites and other civilian infrastructure are generally protected civilian objects under international humanitarian law and cannot be attacked unless they meet the legal criteria for military objectives.
Heritage sites under threat
The minister also pointed to damage and risks faced by cultural heritage sites, including Ta Krabei and the UNESCO-listed Temple of Preah Vihear.
UNESCO expressed “strong concerns” on December 10 over renewed fighting between Cambodia and Thailand, including hostilities near Preah Vihear Temple.
The organisation reminded both countries of their obligations under international law, including the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict and the World Heritage Convention.
UNESCO said it had provided the parties with geographical coordinates for World Heritage properties and other sites of national significance to help prevent potential damage.
Pheaktra said compliance with international humanitarian law could not be established simply by saying civilians were not deliberately targeted.
He highlighted three core principles governing attacks during armed conflict – distinction between civilians and combatants, proportionality between expected civilian harm and anticipated military advantage, and precautions to minimise civilian harm.
“If the Thai military maintains that all of its attacks were lawful and directed exclusively at military objectives, those claims should withstand independent verification,” he said.
He questioned what intelligence was used to select targets, whether civilian presence was assessed beforehand, why weapons with wide-area effects were used and whether alternative weapons, timing or methods could have reduced civilian harm.
However, allegations of attacks on civilians have been made by both countries.
Thailand has maintained that Cambodian forces attacked Thai territory and civilian areas first and that its subsequent operations were legitimate acts of self-defence.
On December 19, the Thai Foreign Ministry also rejected Cambodian allegations concerning an F-16 strike near Poipet, saying the target was a BM-21 rocket storage facility outside the city centre. It maintained that Thai strikes were conducted against verified military targets after intelligence, military and legal scrutiny, while accusing Cambodian forces of positioning military equipment close to civilian communities.
Pheaktra nevertheless argued that statements and denials by either party should not replace examination of physical evidence.
He called for evidence to be documented, independently verified and individual attacks assessed under international humanitarian law rather than accepting claims from the parties to the conflict at face value.
“Those who claim that their attacks were lawful should have nothing to fear from independent verification,” he said.
“If every target was genuinely a military objective, if proportionality was respected, and if all feasible precautions were taken, the evidence should be capable of demonstrating that,” he added.
He said the destruction left by the conflict – including civilian casualties, damaged homes and religious sites, displaced communities and unexploded ordnance – could not be erased simply by repeatedly describing attacks as being against military targets.
“The truth must be measured by the evidence on the ground, not by the claims or denials of those who used the weapons,” he said.Please Click Here.....https://www.facebook.com/realNethPheaktra
