Thailand Call's Cambodia International Diplomacy an Attack, But Its Military Gives No Answer on Reported Border Gunfire

Sihasak Phuangketkeow warned Cambodia against using international forums to “attack” Thailand, arguing that disputes between the two neighbours should be resolved through dialogue rather than international escalation.

According to an official report received from Military Region 4 of the Royal Cambodian Armed Forces, 22 rounds of unprovoked gunfire were heard on the morning of May 24, 2026, between 09:24 AM and 10:10 AM, near the O’Smach International Border Checkpoint in Oddar Meanchey Province. The gunfire was reportedly fired by Thai military forces in an area of Cambodian territory currently occupied by Thai troops.

The concern did not stop there. On May 25, 2026, Military Region 4 of the RCAF contacted Thailand’s Army Area 2 to inquire about another incident involving 8 gunshots heard on the night of May 24. These shots were suspected to have come from the Thai side, including 5 shots at 19:57 in the Phnom Trob area and 3 shots at 20:08 in the Phnom Sambok Khmum area of Preah Vihear Province.

What makes these incidents politically significant is not only the gunfire itself, but Thailand’s response. Since the multiple reported gunfire incidents on May 24, the Thai military has remained silent. This is notable because, in previous cases, Thai military officials often responded quickly by offering explanations, such as describing the sounds as accidents or fireworks, or by accusing Cambodia of making false claims.

This is where the timing matters. While Bangkok’s diplomatic narrative quickly moved to criticize Cambodia’s internationalization of the dispute, the Thai military, which was accused of firing the shots, remained quiet on the ground-level facts. That contrast creates a clear communication pattern: Bangkok speaks loudly about dialogue, while the military avoids public clarification on the reported shooting incidents.

The pattern suggests that Thailand is trying to shift the dispute from a question of border accountability to a question of diplomatic behavior. Instead of publicly addressing Cambodia’s specific reports of gunfire, Thailand’s message focuses on criticizing Cambodia’s use of international forums. This allows Thailand to present itself as the side defending dialogue, while avoiding direct public clarification of what happened on the ground.

This pattern is not limited to land-border incidents. A similar logic can be seen in Thailand’s handling of maritime disputes. After Cambodia urged Thailand to proceed under the UNCLOS compulsory conciliation framework following Thailand’s termination of the MOU framework, Bangkok still emphasized that the process should begin with sincere bilateral talks. This suggests that Sihasak’s wording was carefully designed to reposition Thailand as the actor controlling the diplomatic process.

In this sense, Thailand’s strategy appears to be about controlling the arena of the dispute. If the issue remains bilateral, Thailand can manage the pace, framing, and level of scrutiny. If the issue moves to international forums, Cambodia gains a wider platform to raise questions of accountability, verification, and compliance.