Thailand Says It Wants Peace—So Why Reject Satellite Monitoring and Independent Verification?

Editorial – Lex Opinion Team

When the European Union urged Cambodia and Thailand to immediately restore their ceasefire and offered satellite imagery to support monitoring, it did more than propose a technical solution. It reaffirmed a fundamental principle of international law: peace is sustained not by competing narratives, but by verification.

From Cambodia’s perspective, the legal significance of independent satellite monitoring is straightforward. It is neither an erosion of sovereignty nor an internationalization of a bilateral issue. It is a lawful mechanism to clarify facts, assign responsibility, and prevent escalation driven by misinformation and denial.

Since May 2025, border incidents have often been described as “mutual” clashes. Cambodian official statements and domestic reporting, however, consistently present a different account. Cambodia did not initiate cross-border military force, nor did it abandon the negotiation frameworks governing the frontier. Instead, it emphasized restraint, diplomatic protest, and continued reliance on peaceful dispute-settlement mechanisms.

International law is clear. Article 2(3) of the United Nations Charter obliges states to resolve disputes by peaceful means, while Article 2(4) prohibits the threat or use of force against another state’s territorial integrity. Cambodia has repeatedly reaffirmed its adherence to these obligations through official statements and diplomatic communications.

Thailand’s recent conduct has raised serious legal concerns. Public signals questioning established negotiation mechanisms, reliance on unilateral cartographic claims long rejected by international adjudication, and continued military activity in disputed areas have contributed to prolonging the crisis rather than resolving it. Cambodian officials have warned that such actions undermine confidence in law-based dispute settlement and destabilize the regional legal order.

This is precisely why independent satellite verification matters.

Modern satellite imagery can establish timelines of troop movements, artillery deployment, shelling patterns, and the placement of military assets. It can corroborate—or contradict—claims about who initiated force and whether ceasefire lines were respected. Unlike political narratives, satellite data does not argue. It records.

For Cambodia, legality depends on facts. Without independent verification, escalation can be obscured by false equivalence. With verification, responsibility becomes traceable. Cambodian authorities have therefore expressed openness to third-party and satellite-based monitoring, viewing it as a safeguard for diplomacy rather than a substitute for it.

This position has been reinforced at the highest political level. Prime Minister Hun Manet has publicly called for international involvement, including independent and satellite-supported monitoring mechanisms, to ensure transparency and prevent further escalation. Following the shooting incident on 7 December 2025, which marked the beginning of the latest round of fighting, he proposed that the United States and Malaysia use satellite imagery recorded during the incident and the following twenty-four hours to verify which side opened fire first. He described this as the easiest and most transparent way to establish the facts and affirmed Cambodia’s full readiness to cooperate.

Cambodia has also elevated the matter to the United Nations. In New York, its Permanent Representative formally requested the Security Council to demand that Thai armed forces immediately cease what Cambodia described as illegal armed aggression. In that same communication, Cambodia explicitly supported independent verification mechanisms, including satellite monitoring, to establish facts and deter further escalation.

This commitment to evidence extends beyond military incidents to mine issues. In early December, the Cambodian Mine Action Authority responded to allegations published by Nikkei Asia by warning against the politicization of mine action. It stressed that unverified claims risk distorting technical truth and undermining decades of humanitarian progress. Mine action, Cambodia argued, must remain grounded in evidence, neutral expertise, and established international mechanisms, not repurposed as a pretext for escalation.

Across military, diplomatic, and humanitarian domains, Cambodia’s position has been consistent: transparency over accusation, verification over rhetoric, and law over force.

Thailand’s hesitation toward robust international monitoring is therefore difficult to reconcile with its stated commitment to peace. If military actions are defensive and proportionate, independent verification should confirm them. Resistance to transparency invites the opposite inference.

The involvement of actors such as the European Union or the United States would not destabilize the situation by internationalizing the dispute. On the contrary, it would depoliticize the facts. Verification separates law from rhetoric and negotiation from coercion.

Ceasefires do not fail because monitoring exists. They fail because accountability does not. When facts remain contested, escalation becomes easier to justify. When facts are established, escalation becomes a deliberate choice.

Cambodia’s approach remains fundamentally legal, not strategic. It seeks peace through rules, not leverage; through verification, not force. Satellite monitoring offers a path back to that framework.

Satellites cannot compel peace. But they can tell the truth. And in international law, truth is where responsibility begins.

Footnotes

ទំនាក់ទំនង