Sovereignty and military’s image drive Thailand’s hardline response to Cambodia

Within just over a month, Thailand’s stance towards Cambodia has swung from conciliation to confrontation: a “momentous” and “historic” peace deal signed in late October was abruptly suspended after a landmine explosion injured four Thai soldiers in November. On 8 December, a new round of fighting erupted when Cambodia fired shells and rockets across the border, killing one Thai soldier and injuring several more. This prompted Thailand to launch airstrikes in response.

The rapid escalation on both sides is not simply the product of short-term political calculations. In Thailand’s case, two deeply rooted narratives — territorial sovereignty and the military’s role as the guardian of the nation — consistently shape public opinion and push Bangkok towards a harder line on Cambodia. With elections looming, the government has to ride this nationalist wave rather than risk appearing soft. 

Territorial disputes with Cambodia occupy a sensitive place in Thailand’s historical memory. They are repeatedly framed as tests of sovereignty. These tensions have repeatedly resurfaced, from French colonial expansion in the late 19th century, to Thailand’s wartime occupation during its alliance with Japan, to the post-World War II period when Thailand returned the area to France and later reoccupied some areas after French troops withdrew. In 1959, Cambodia brought the dispute about Preah Vihear — a temple located at the Thai-Cambodian border area — to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), challenging Thailand’s troop repositioning around the temple. The ICJ ruled in Cambodia’s favour, arguing that the territory fell on the Cambodian side because Thailand had previously accepted a 1907 French map despite its deviation from the watershed line. The decision left a deep imprint on Thai public consciousness, reinforcing the narrative of repeated territorial loss. 

The memory of territorial loss still resonates in popular discourse. The state-propagated narrative that Thailand has “lost territory fourteen times” to the West continues to circulate, even though scholars such as Thongchai Winichakul have shown that the concepts of territorial sovereignty and fixed borders were not yet fully formed in Thailand in the late 19th century, making the loss of defined national territory in the modern sense impossible. Because this collective memory runs deep, political elites have repeatedly weaponised it to attack opposing camps. For example, when the government supported Cambodia’s 2008 bid to list Preah Vihear as a UNESCO World Heritage Site, protesters known as the yellow shirts condemned the move as a surrendering of Thai dignity and pressured the government to withdraw its support.

A similar sensitivity is evident now. Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul, leader of a minority government, was pressured to apologise after publicly acknowledging that Thailand had also encroached on Cambodia’s territory. The backlash highlighted how politically dangerous it remains for any Thai leader to deviate from the dominant narrative of territorial sovereignty, limiting their ability to pursue a more diplomatic approach towards Cambodia. This dynamic became even clearer after the latest clashes: as reports circulated that Cambodian forces had fired shells and rockets across the border, public sentiment hardened rapidly. When the Thai military launched airstrikes in response, many online influencers welcomed the move. Some even urged the military to use the moment to take back territories they believe belong to Thailand. 

In addition to the territorial sovereignty narrative, Thailand’s hardline stance is reinforced by the long-standing belief that the military serves as the ultimate guardian of the nation. In contrast to self-interested politicians, the armed forces portray themselves as selfless and patriotic defenders of the kingdom who truly safeguard the national interest — the image held by most Thais. This moral authority makes security-first approaches appear more legitimate than diplomatic or economic solutions. When civilian politicians propose resolving disputes through economic cooperation — such as joint development projects with Cambodia in contested maritime areas — conservative voices often denounce these initiatives as “selling out the nation”. Such reactions further narrow the political space for compromise and constrain leaders from pursuing more diplomatic options.

The belief in the military’s heroic role also obscures Thailand’s civil-military dynamics. With the military’s version of events often seen as more credible, the army can shape conflict narratives and influence public opinion in ways that constrain civilian decision-making. During the initial exchange on 24 July, Lt Gen Boonsin Padklang, the then commander of the Second Army Area known for his role in the Thai-Cambodian tensions, revealed that a civilian official had ordered him to halt attacks on Cambodia. The exchange sparked the current round of tensions, bringing territorial disputes back into the forefront of public consciousness. The general’s comments immediately fuelled public curiosity and online speculation about who would have dared to issue such an order, as if restraint itself required justification. A NIDA poll conducted on 4-5 August reflected this mood. Around 75 per cent of respondents said they were satisfied with the army’s handling of the conflict, while views of the government were far more negative. 

In an effort to appeal to nationalists and boost his popularity, Prime Minister Anutin visited the soldiers injured by the landmine, wept at their bedsides, and vowed to take care of these “young men who sacrificed for the nation”. These gestures reveal how essential it has become for civilian leaders to align themselves with the military if they hope to maintain political support. Questioning or counterbalancing the armed forces is seen as simply too risky, especially during times of conflict said to involve Thailand’s “sovereignty”.

Taken together, these two narratives — territorial sovereignty and the military as the guardian of the kingdom — push Thailand towards a harder line on Cambodia. With the government operating as a minority coalition and an election likely next year, leaders are acutely aware of the political costs of appearing weak.

The decision to subject the fate of two memoranda of understanding (MOUs) signed with Cambodia to a public referendum reflects the government’s awareness of the nationalist tide and a reluctance to take positions that could jeopardise support. MOUs 43 and 44 sought to establish mechanisms for resolving land and maritime territorial disputes. As long as the two narratives continue to dominate Thailand’s political landscape, any attempt at a more pragmatic or conciliatory policy towards Cambodia will remain politically fraught, and Thailand’s foreign policy will continue to be driven more by history and domestic sentiment than strategic calculation. In such an environment, the border becomes highly prone to escalation — and once violence erupts, it becomes far harder for either side to contain or de-escalate it. 

Pongkwan Sawasdipakdi is a lecturer in international relations and assistant dean for graduate studies at the Faculty of Political Science, Thammasat University.

This article was first published on ISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute as a Fulcrum commentary on 9 December 2025.