No Real Peace Yet: Lessons from the Thai–Cambodian Landmine Incident
By Thanachate Wisaijorn
Faculty of Political Science, Ubon Ratchathani University
T he recent landmine explosion in Kantharalak District, Sisaket Province, on Monday morning severely injured a Thai soldier, resulting in the loss of his leg — the seventh casualty since renewed clashes began in May this year.
This tragic event serves as a painful reminder that Thai–Cambodian relations, particularly in the field of security, remain fragile and beset by mistrust. Although both governments have attempted to project an image of calmness and cooperation through diplomatic channels, mutual suspicion continues to run deep along the border — especially in the Phu Ma Khuea area, a historically contested and strategically sensitive zone.
This incident is not unprecedented. In July this year, the two sides clashed in the same vicinity, and the Thai military raised serious concerns that the mines which detonated were of the PMN-2 type — a form of anti-personnel mine that should have long been cleared under the Ottawa Convention. The continued discovery of such devices cannot simply be dismissed as remnants from the past. Rather, it raises the troubling possibility that these mines may have been newly planted, which, if verified, would constitute a grave breach of international obligations.
For decades, the Cambodian state has benefited from substantial financial and technical assistance from international organisations and non-governmental agencies to support mine clearance operations within its territory. Yet, the persistence of the problem raises serious questions about the effectiveness and transparency of the Cambodian government’s efforts.
If Cambodian state continues to receive considerable international funding but fails to produce tangible results, doubts inevitably emerge as to whether landmines are merely a lingering physical danger or a reflection of deeper political and economic structures of vested interest embedded within the state apparatus.
More concerning still, despite a jointly facilitated declaration between the Thai and Cambodian state — brokered by the US and the Malaysian state — which obliges both parties to cooperate on mine clearance, there are allegations that new mines have been laid in recent months. Such actions, if true, not only undermine mutual confidence but also deepen an already volatile and dangerous situation along the border.
In response, Thailand’s National Security Council (NSC), yesterday, took decisive steps to safeguard national interests and the safety of its people. The Council has resolved to suspend the Joint Declaration with Cambodia, halt the dispatch of joint survey teams, and lodge a formal diplomatic protest with Phnom Penh.
The Thai state will now proceed with unilateral mine clearance operations within its own territory, citing the imperative of protecting Thai citizens and soldiers stationed along the frontier. Furthermore, letters will be sent to the US and Malaysian government to clarify Thailand’s position, while the military has been authorised to act within the established rules of engagement.
While these measures reflect a firm stance by the Thai government, they also highlight an uncomfortable reality: there is still no genuine peace along the Thai–Cambodian border. What exists at best is a temporary ceasefire rather than lasting stability. Political leaders in Bangkok and Phnom Penh may speak eloquently of friendship and ASEAN solidarity, yet soldiers continue to patrol terrain where every step could conceal a hidden mine, and border communities live in a state of constant anxiety.
The Thai government must therefore look beyond the diplomatic optics and focus on the human dimension of this issue. The immediate priority should be the protection of Thai soldiers’ lives and limbs. The introduction of modern technology to enhance safety in the field is urgently needed — including advanced protective leg gear, high-sensitivity metal detectors, surveillance drones, and remote-controlled patrol robots capable of scanning hazardous terrain ahead of deployment. Such short-term technological measures could significantly reduce the risk of injury and loss of life among personnel on the ground.
At the same time, the Thai state must pursue a dual-track strategy that combines robust security measures with sustained diplomatic engagement. The Cambodian state should be urged to allow international mechanisms — such as the ASEAN Mine Action Centre (AMAC) or the United Nations — to participate in independent monitoring and verification processes.
This would enhance transparency and help rebuild confidence within the international community. Mine clearance must not be exploited as a political instrument but treated as a shared humanitarian duty rooted in mutual trust and responsibility.
Following this latest incident, it is worth noting that several security analysts have begun to discuss the notion of a pre-emptive strike should the Cambodian state continue to pose a perceived threat. The very emergence of such discourse reflects the extent of frustration and the erosion of trust towards Cambodian state’s intentions. Nevertheless, the Thai government has, thus far, refrained from adopting such a course, maintaining instead a cautious approach grounded in diplomacy and de-escalation.
The agreement brokered several weeks ago by the United States and Malaysia initially appeared to offer a pathway towards cooperation. In practice, however, it has failed to alleviate tensions. The most recent explosion only underscores the reality that agreements on paper cannot substitute for genuine action in the field. Without mechanisms for verification and shared accountability, trust will remain elusive, and peace will continue to exist only as an aspiration rather than a reality.
As long as Thai soldiers must risk their lives in mine-infested areas, as long as local residents cannot live without fear, and as long as the Cambodian government fails to demonstrate genuine transparency before the international community, peace along the border will remain an illusion.
The lesson from this tragedy is not merely about assigning blame, but about urging both nations to confront a deeper question: Do we truly seek peace — or simply a temporary silence of the guns?
__________
