JIC warns threats to arrest Anutin and use force could harm talks

ACM Prapas Sonjaidee, director of the Thailand-Cambodia Joint Information Centre (JIC), on Thursday (August 27) criticised a Cambodian article containing threats to arrest Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul and raising the possibility of using force, warning that such rhetoric could damage the atmosphere for negotiations.

He also urged the Cambodian side to revisit the ceasefire agreement, stressing that the prime minister’s visit had not changed the border.

He was responding to a Cambodian article claiming that Thai officials, including Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul, could be arrested and prosecuted under Cambodian law if they entered areas Cambodia claims as its sovereign territory. The article also referred to the possibility of using force.

Prapas argued that both sides should return to discussions based on facts, agreements jointly signed by the two countries and their shared responsibility for maintaining peace.

He stressed that one side unilaterally declaring an area to be under its sovereignty does not settle a boundary dispute. Such claims, he added, should not be used as the basis for threatening to arrest or prosecute officials from the other country, or for raising the prospect of using force, as this would only increase tensions rather than help resolve the dispute.

Prapas urged the Cambodian side to revisit the Joint Statement signed at the third Special General Border Committee (GBC) meeting on December 27, 2025. Under the agreement, both countries are to maintain their forces at the positions held when the ceasefire took effect, refrain from moving troops or conducting patrols towards the other side’s positions, and avoid provocative actions that could escalate tensions.

Against that background, he maintained that Anutin’s visit to inspect and support Thai personnel in areas on the Thai side and at positions where Thai forces remain deployed under the agreement did not amount to border demarcation, the creation of a new boundary or Thai acceptance of any other party’s sovereignty claims.

Where the two sides disagree over sovereignty, he noted that bilateral mechanisms already accepted by both countries remain available to address those differences.

Border questions must be dealt with through maps, evidence, treaties, surveys and procedures recognised by both sides, he argued, rather than being decided by articles, threats or arrest warrants based on unilateral claims.

Prapas expressed particular concern over the effect such rhetoric could have on the atmosphere needed to preserve peace. Both countries had already agreed to reduce tensions, avoid provocative actions and create conditions conducive to resolving disputes peacefully.

“We should therefore ask whether talking about arresting the prime minister of a neighbouring country, or raising the possibility of using force, helps create an atmosphere for negotiations or instead destroys it,” he remarked.

Thailand, he continued, had chosen dialogue, bilateral mechanisms and compliance with agreements signed by both countries, adding that Bangkok wanted Cambodia to follow the same path.

“Do not use threats in place of negotiations, or unilateral claims in place of border demarcation, and do not turn the border into an arena for escalating rhetoric,” he urged.

“Thailand is ready to talk, to use the agreed mechanisms and to build peace. But peace can only be achieved when both sides respect the same agreements, reduce provocation and allow facts and existing mechanisms to do their work.”

Prapas added that Thailand and Cambodia were neighbouring countries and did not need to compete through rhetoric, as people in both countries wanted safety, peace and a border where differences could be resolved through negotiations rather than threats.