Thailand Defends Key Border Treaty as Essential for Resolving Cambodia Dispute
The Foreign Affairs Ministry explains the benefits of a 2000 memorandum of understanding, arguing it is the best tool for safe, peaceful border demarcation
- Thailand is defending a 2000 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Cambodia, stating it provides a crucial framework for resolving border disputes through a Joint Boundary Commission, shared surveys, and map creation based on historical treaties.
- The government argues that abandoning the treaty is counterproductive as it would force a restart of the same process, and points out that the framework is already operational with survey work on disputed markers underway.
Thailand’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs is defending a 2000 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Cambodia, arguing that the agreement is crucial for resolving long-standing border disputes and is beneficial to the country.
Benjamin Sukarnjanajtee, the Director-General of the Department of Treaties and Legal Affairs, stated that the MOU is a binding framework for establishing a joint boundary. He explained that it allows both nations to conduct a shared survey and create an official, usable map.
The process relies on the 1904 and 1907 Siam-France Treaties as foundational documents, which define the principles for demarcation.
The agreement established a Joint Boundary Commission (JBC) to oversee the process and a Joint Technical Subcommittee (JTSC) to conduct on-the-ground surveys.
A key provision, he said, is that both countries must refrain from any actions that would alter the border environment, such as digging canals or deploying military forces.
According to Benjamin, the MOU also stipulates that any disagreements must be resolved through direct negotiation between the two countries, effectively preventing any third-party intervention.
Furthermore, the agreement requires Thailand and Cambodia to cooperate on demining the border area so that surveyors can work safely.
Benjamin stressed that abandoning the MOU would not change the facts established by the original treaties and the 1:200,000 scale map, which would still apply.
He argued that cancelling the agreement would simply force the two nations to restart the entire process, using the very same documents and mechanisms that the MOU formalises.
"It is clear which side has been violating the rules," he said, referencing the no-alteration clause, and pointing out that the safety of the survey team depends on both parties fulfilling their obligation to clear landmines.
The director-general confirmed that the JBC mechanism is already being put into practice. Following a meeting in June, the JTSC was authorised to begin surveying 29 of the 74 disputed boundary markers. This, he noted, proves that the MOU framework is effective and operational.
