From Confession to Consequence: Thai Army Policy and Responsibility Amid Border Conflict

There are moments when international responsibility no longer needs to be teased out through debate — it reveals itself in actions, statements and their consequences. This is such a moment.

Over the past months, Thailand and Cambodia have been embroiled in one of the most serious border crises between ASEAN members in decades. The violence, rooted in long-standing territorial disputes over sections of the frontier including the areas near the Preah Vihear temple, erupted into extensive ground clashes, artillery duels and air operations in 2025. Both capitals — Phnom Penh and Bangkok — now accuse each other of initiating hostilities, while civilian fatalities and mass displacement have compounded the human toll.

At the center of mounting criticism is the Thai military leadership, whose public war doctrine — as articulated by senior commanders — has not only guided Thailand’s strategic posture but shaped its legal and moral positioning on the global stage. Thai generals have openly framed the conflict as a necessary defense of sovereignty, emphasising decisive action to protect territory and citizens. Yet, observers in Cambodia and within parts of the international community argue that such rhetoric amounts to a confession of aggressive intent rather than a calibrated defensive strategy.

This debate over “responsibility” goes beyond rhetoric. In public statements and policy rationales, Thai military authorities have insisted their responses align with international law and the inherent right to self-defense as defined under Article 51 of the UN Charter. Such legal framing is intended to justify military operations, including the use of heavy weapons near civilian areas and, in some cases, across internationally recognised borders.

However, critics contend that policy choices reflecting “full-spectrum” combat readiness and aggressive postures — rather than measured, diplomacy-first strategies — exaggerate threat perceptions, erode avenues for peaceful resolution and expose both soldiers and civilians to unnecessary harm. The protracted nature of the hostilities, and the scale of displacement and destruction they have caused, now invite scrutiny over whether military leaders prioritized tactical dominance over broader stability and humanitarian outcomes.

Moreover, the intensifying conflict has diplomatic ramifications. ASEAN’s foundational principle of non-interference and regional conflict-management mechanisms are under strain as external actors push for ceasefires and dialogue. Choices made by top commanders are therefore far from isolated military decisions — they reverberate through diplomatic channels and shape Southeast Asia’s collective security architecture.