The fierce war of words holds both sides of the edge

Weapons on the wooded Thai-Kambodian border have been silent for three weeks.

But a fierce war of words is still waged on both sides, as they seek to win international sympathy and reduce public support at home. And the often maintained view in Thailand is that they lose.

“The perception is that Cambodia seems more firing, more resistant and more intelligent than the media,” says Claire Patimanon, talking to Thai PubScast System Podcast Media Pulse. “Thailand has always been a step back.”

The centuries -old border dispute dramatically escalates with a Cambodian rocket barage in Thailand on the morning of July 24, followed by Thai air strikes.

Since then, an army of Cambodi warriors on social media, backed by state -controlled channels in English, unleashed a flood of accusations and inflammatory reports, many of which have proven to be false.

They reported that the Thai F16 fighter had been removed, posting images on a plane falling from the sky – it turned out to be from Ukraine. Another unjustified claim that Thailand released poison gas was accompanied by an image of a water bomber that releases a pink fire. It was really from a fire in California.

Thailand replied with official statements, but often these were just dry presentations of statistics, and they came from many sources – the military, the local authorities, the health ministry, the foreign ministry – who do not always seem to coordinate with each other.

Bangkok failed to overcome its argument that Cambodia, whose rockets had marked the first use of artillery and killed several Thai civilians, was responsible for escalation.

It is no secret that the Thai government’s chosen government focused on the PHEU Thai Party Party Taxin Shinawatar, has a restless relationship with the Thai military.

It was much worse in June when Hong Saint, the former Cambodia leader and an old friend of Takin, decided to expire a private telephone conversation, which he had with Thaksin’s daughter, Prime Minister Petongarn Shinawatra. She had turned to him to help resolve their differences along the border and complained that the Thai army’s common commands had opposed her there.

The leak caused political unrest in Thailand, which prompted the Constitutional Court to stop it and the government weakens poorly, just when the border crisis escalates.

Hong Saint has no such difficulties. Technically, he has betrayed the power to his son Hun Manet, but after ruling the country for nearly 40 years, it is clear that he is still holding the reins.

The army, the ruling party and the media are firmly under his control. His motives for burning his friendship with Shinawas are unclear, but it seems that he was preparing for a greater conflict over the border.

From the very beginning, Hun Saint has been published constantly, in Khmer and English, on his Facebook page, laughing at the Thai government, along with the photos they showed him in an army uniform or reviewing war cards.

In contrast, the most visible figure on the Thai country is the Mercury Commander of the Second Army Lieutenant Gen Bunsin Padclang. He is the same officer who complained to Paathongarn, and his shovel nationalism has won him many fans in Thailand, but also undermines the government’s power.

“Hun Saint is very smart,” says Sebastian Striah, author of Hong Saint’s Cambodia, a final story about the way his leadership has formed the country.

“He used this asymmetrical tactic to expand divisions that already exist in Thailand. And the fact that Cambodia is so good at the victim’s game has given him another powerful weapon against Thailand on the International Arena.”

Thai officials admit that they are struggling to oppose the tactics used by the Cambodian side.

“This is completely different from how the information wars were led before,” said RoS Jaineadra, Deputy Foreign Minister, before the BBC.

“What we say must be credible and be able to be proven. This is the only weapon we can use to fight in this war. And we have to stick to this, even though we seem to be not fast enough.”

Thailand always insisted that his border dispute with Cambodia should be resolved bilaterally, without external intervention, using a joint border border committee that the two countries were created 25 years ago.

But Cambodia wants to internationalize the dispute. He was the first to forward the escalating conflict to the UN Security Council last month. He also asked the International Court of Justice to rule where the border should be hidden. This was presented by Thailand dilemma.

The official reason why Thailand gives the ICJ’s involvement is that, like many other countries, it does not recognize the jurisdiction of ICJ. But just as important is the Thai collective memory of the loss and humiliation of ICJ, which is cut off at the heart of the border dispute.

Both Thailand and Cambodia have secured national stories of unfair territorial losses.

In the case of Cambodia, this is the story of the once powerful empire, reduced to poverty through war and revolution, and for the mercy of the territorial ambitions of its bigger neighbors.

Thailand is a more history of being forced to sacrifice territories in the early 20th century to abandon the French or British colonial rule. When Thailand agreed to a new border with occupied French Cambodia, it allowed French cartographers to draw the map.

But when Cambodia became an independent state in 1953, Thai forces occupied a grandi -Khmer, called Preah Vihear, or Khao Phra Viharn in Thai, landed on the top of the rock, which had to mark the border.

The Thai argue that French cartographers made a mistake in moving the border away from the waterfall, the agreed dividing line, placing the temple in Cambodia.

Cambodia took the dispute in the Council of Ministers and won.

The court ruled that despite the disadvantages of the map, Thailand failed to cause them in the previous half century.

The then military ruler of Thailand was shocked by the result and wanted to attack Cambodia, but was convinced of his diplomats to accept the sentence roughly.

Thailand’s sensitivity over his loss since 1962 is now making politically impossible to accept ICJ’s role in resolving other border disputes.

This allowed Hun Saint to present Thailand as a rebuttal of international law.

Thailand is now counteracting the Cambodian story with a more effective own: the use of mines.

Both sides have signed the Ottawa Convention, which prohibits the use of anti-seats mines, and Cambodia has a traumatic heritage to be one of the most acquired countries in the world, for which he has received many abroad funding.

So the accusation of Thailand that Cambodian soldiers are launching new anti -seats mines along the border, causing numerous injuries to Thai soldiers is inconvenient to the government in Phnom Penh.

Initially, Cambodia rejected the claim, saying that these were old mines left by the Civil War in the 1980s. Then the Thai government brought a group of diplomats and journalists to the border to show us what they found.

Located on a jungle table, just a few hundred meters from the border, it was a collection of ammunition that Thai deactivating teams say they have recovered from areas that have previously been occupied by Cambodian troops.

We were limited to a small meadows marked by red and white strips. Everywhere after that, they said, it was dangerous. At the driving along the mud track, we saw Thai soldiers in camouflage bunkers hidden in trees.

Among the ammunition were dozens of thick, green plastic discs around the diameter of a saucer. These were Russian mini PMN -2, which contained a large amount of explosives – enough to cause severe damage to the limbs – and are difficult to deactivate. Some looked brand new and were not laid.

The initial images of these prompted Cambodia to dismiss Thailand’s claims as unfounded as armed pins were not removed.

However, we were shown other mines that were armed and buried, but apparently recently – not in the 1980s.

Thailand calls for action against Cambodia from others signed the Ottawa Convention and asks the countries that support the Cambodia Discovery programs to stop funding them.

He claims that Cambodia’s refusal to recognize a mini for laying or to agree to a plan to remove them, demonstrates a lack of good faith in resolving the border dispute.

Cambodia shot back, accusing Thailand of using cluster ammunition and white phosphorus shells, which are not prohibited, but can also pose a threat to non-bellows; The Thai military admitted they used them, but only, it says, for military goals.

Cambodia also publishes pictures of what he writes is damage to the Preah Vihear Temple, a world heritage place, from Thai firing, something that Thai military has denied.

Continuous dawns of accusations on both sides make progress on their border dispute unlikely.

Hong Saint and his son took advantage of the opportunity to depict themselves as defenders on Cambodian soil, but the conflict worsened the political challenges facing the Thai government.

He roused intense hostility between Thai and Cambodian nationalists. Hundreds of thousands of workers in Cambodia have left Thailand, which will hit an already struggling Cambodian economy.

“Both sides describe the border as a holy dividing line between their countries,” says G -n Strandzh. “Symbolism is extremely important. This reduces many deep questions about national identity and this is something that no country can afford to take a step back right now.”