Thailand outlines position on Cambodia’s Preah Vihear claims

ACM Prapas Sornchaidee, assistant commander-in-chief of the Royal Thai Air Force and director of the Thailand-Cambodia Joint Information Centre (JIC), outlined Thailand’s position on Friday (September 11, 2026) after the Cambodian Mine Action Centre (CMAC) accused the country of attacking the Temple of Preah Vihear and intending to destroy the World Heritage site.

He said Thailand placed the highest priority on protecting cultural heritage and had no intention of destroying the temple, but could not disregard information indicating that the area had been used to store weapons, deploy forces and launch attacks towards Thailand, affecting Thai military personnel and civilians.

He stressed that, under international humanitarian law, if a site or area was used for military purposes, that use had to be assessed against the facts and applicable law.

Thailand’s actions were directed at military threats and carried out in self-defence, applying the principles of distinction, military necessity and proportionality rather than targeting cultural heritage.

Prapas said any assessment should not focus solely on damage after the event, but should consider the entire sequence, including who fired, where the fire came from, what the target was and what happened to Thai military personnel and civilians.

Thailand was prepared to submit facts and evidence for impartial examination under the same standards for all parties.

Prapas said figures referring to 501 targets and damage at more than 560 locations required verification.

Damage alone could not prove intent, while any assessment must examine the source of the fire, the sequence of events, the area’s military use and the objectives of all operations.

Prapas drew a distinction between damage assessments by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) and any determination of Thailand’s legal responsibility.

The existence of damage was a fact to be considered, but attributing responsibility or intent required evidence and an appropriate legal process.

World Heritage sites must be protected but must not be used for military purposes, he said.

If weapons were stored, troops deployed, or attacks launched against Thai military personnel and civilians from such an area, Thailand had the right to defend itself under international law.

He called for the complete sequence of events and evidence from all sides to be assessed by the same standards.

Thailand’s principal messages concerned the protection of cultural heritage, the need to prevent World Heritage sites from being used for military purposes, self-defence, civilian protection, examination of the full sequence of events and independent verification so that the facts could be established impartially.

Prapas rejected Cambodia’s accusation that Thailand had staged the visit by the ASEAN Observer Team (AOT) and the media.

He maintained that Thailand had no need to stage anything because the observers and journalists had seen for themselves what was present at the site.

Thailand’s role was to provide access subject to safety requirements and allow visitors to form their own judgements.

Cambodia should present any different information or evidence through the relevant mechanisms so that it could be examined.

Systematic examination of the facts, rather than accusations through the media, was the best course, he said.

Cambodia also argued that the observers had not seen the full picture because Thailand selected the routes and locations.

Prapas maintained that every border visit had to take safety into account, requiring routes to be assessed and coordinated in advance.

Setting routes for safety reasons did not dictate what observers should believe.

Thailand did not ask anyone to accept its account alone and supported further examination based on verifiable information and evidence.

Prapas welcomed Col Roderick Garcia’s observation that what he had seen differed from the information he had previously received and required further examination.

He said the call for more scrutiny accorded with Thailand’s position that no judgement should be based solely on claims from either side.

When earlier information did not match what was seen at the site, the observers’ duty was to review it, and Thailand was ready to support an impartial process within the limits of their mandate.

Images of scam bases, mock police stations and other sites under suspicion could not establish wrongdoing by Cambodia without an investigation, Prapas said.

Images and locations were preliminary information, while any connection to criminal activity or responsibility had to be established through investigation and law enforcement.

Thailand regarded transnational crime, particularly online scam networks, as a shared regional problem that should be addressed through cooperation and evidence rather than accusations.

Cambodia has also questioned why Thailand spoke of troop withdrawals if it was not occupying territory.

Prapas maintained that deployment and occupation must be clearly distinguished.

The presence of troops in an area because of the security situation did not automatically determine sovereignty.

Thailand had no intention of seizing Cambodian territory, while Thai force deployments had to be considered under agreements between the two sides, particularly the joint statement issued on Saturday (December 27, 2025).

Border issues must be resolved through the mechanisms specifically responsible for them rather than decided through interviews given by either side.

Thailand was not asking anyone to accept its statements without question, but to examine the facts, Prapas said.

Any doubts should prompt further examination, and any evidence should be compared.

Observers were there to observe, not to decide the border, while the border dispute must return to the mechanisms agreed by both countries.

“A scene may be staged, but evidence can be verified. Thailand therefore does not seek to compete through rhetoric. We seek to compete on facts, open ourselves to scrutiny and return to the agreement jointly signed by both sides. That is the most responsible way forward,” Prapas said.