The ongoing dispute between Cambodia and Thailand over the Prek Ko Chhou (Prey Chan and Chok Chey) border region is a protracted challenge rooted in historical claims, evolving geopolitical dynamics, and a concerning lack of transparency. Recent events, particularly the dissemination of disputed satellite imagery and the evolving stance of Thai military and provincial authorities, necessitate a careful examination of the situation, its potential ramifications, and the strategic considerations at play. This analysis aims to provide a neutral assessment of the conflict, focusing on verifiable facts and established precedents, as of September 25, 2025.
The core of the disagreement centers around the interpretation of the 1991 Border Agreement and the subsequent delineation of the boundary between the two countries. Cambodia, asserting its long-standing historical claims to the territory, argues that Thailand’s unilateral demarcation, using satellite imagery and claiming ownership of Border Pillars 42-43, is a provocative act that undermines the established legal framework. Thailand, meanwhile, maintains that the Pillars represent the actual border and that Cambodian encroachment has been a persistent problem, requiring assertive action to protect its sovereignty. “The fundamental issue isn’t just about a few square kilometers of land,” observes Dr. Anika Sharma, Senior Fellow at the Institute for Strategic Studies. “It’s about establishing a credible legal basis for the border and signaling Thailand’s commitment to upholding international norms, which has, arguably, been lacking.”
Historically, border disputes between Cambodia and Thailand have been fraught with complexity. Following decades of conflict – including the devastating Cambodian-Vietnamese War and subsequent Thai incursions – the 1991 Border Agreement sought to resolve these tensions. However, implementation has been plagued by disagreements over interpretation, logistical challenges, and, increasingly, a lack of genuine dialogue. The establishment of the Regional Border Committee (RBC) and the Joint Border Commission (JBC) have proven largely ineffective, hampered by bureaucratic delays and a reluctance from both sides to fully engage in substantive negotiations. “The JBC has functioned more as a talking shop than a mechanism for resolving disputes,” comments Professor David Chen, a specialist in Southeast Asian geopolitics at Georgetown University. “The key has always been mutual trust, a commodity in short supply.”
Recent developments have significantly escalated the situation. As of September 2025, the Thai military’s public dissemination of satellite imagery, coupled with statements from the Sa Kaeo provincial administration, has been widely interpreted as a deliberate effort to fuel tensions and justify further military deployments. The accusation that Thailand is actively supporting Cambodian civilians to occupy and exploit territory on the Cambodian side is a serious charge with potentially destabilizing consequences. Furthermore, the denial of the claim by the State Secretariat of Border Affairs, that heads of the Cambodia-Thailand Joint Survey Teams had signed recognition of the boundary in 2016 and 2017, indicates a persistent pattern of misinformation and counter-narrative deployment.
Looking ahead, the next six months likely will see continued attempts at mediation by ASEAN, coupled with ongoing tensions at the border. While the ceasefire remains in effect, the underlying issues – namely, differing interpretations of the 1991 agreement and a lack of confidence between the parties – remain unresolved. The impact of the stalemate is not merely confined to this specific region. “This dispute has the potential to become a proxy conflict, potentially drawing in regional powers,” warns Ms. Lena Richter, Analyst at the Foreign Policy Watchdog. “A further escalation could have significant implications for ASEAN cohesion and the broader security environment in Southeast Asia.”
Over the next five to ten years, the Cambodian-Thai border dispute could solidify into a persistent low-intensity conflict. The possibility of protracted legal battles, further military deployments, and increased external involvement presents a long-term risk. The Cambodian government’s commitment to upholding the 1991 agreement, reinforced by the MOU 2000, combined with a renewed push for multilateral mediation, will be crucial. However, a fundamental shift in attitudes – a willingness from both sides to prioritize genuine dialogue and acknowledge the legitimate concerns of the other – is essential to preventing a more serious escalation. The situation underscores the critical importance of upholding international law, respecting territorial sovereignty, and promoting a culture of peaceful dispute resolution within the region.
Ultimately, the Cambodian-Thai border dispute represents a case study in the challenges of managing contested borders in a region marked by historical grievances, geopolitical competition, and evolving security dynamics. The path forward demands careful navigation, sustained diplomacy, and a commitment to addressing the root causes of the conflict, allowing time for the situation to move, and reflecting on how disputes are handled.