Thailand stands isolated on the global stage, analyzing Cambodia's tactic of playing the role of the 'victim' after victimhood has been employed as a political instrument. In this conflict, who ends up at a disadvantage?
"I have not seen any country condemn Cambodia for laying landmines in Thai territory; they only urge Thailand to reduce the use of weapons and violence," said General Natthaphon Nakpanich, Minister of Defense, on 23 Dec 2025 GMT+7.
Meanwhile, Cambodia is trying to assume the role of the aggrieved party and is actively pursuing legal action on the international stage. On 24 Dec 2025 GMT+7, Cambodia joined the GBC secretary-level meeting in Chanthaburi Province to discuss resolving the Thailand-Cambodia border issues. The first day's meeting concluded within 35 minutes.
In today's world, international conflicts are no longer confined to troop movements or military clashes; they have clearly expanded into the realm of international communication. The words chosen by leaders or state representatives for public statements carry weight similar to battlefield tactics because they frame global understanding of a situation early on, even before thorough verification of facts on the ground.
The tense situation along the Thailand-Cambodia border vividly illustrates this point. Multiple clashes in disputed areas were continuously reported by domestic and international news agencies between 24–28 July 2025 GMT+7, leading to retaliatory statements by both sides in close succession. This drew intense international media attention to the Thailand-Cambodia border conflict.
At the same time, in-depth information from the area is still being gathered and verified. Tensions flared again in early December 2025 GMT+7 with reports of clashes in several locations. The incidents occurred on the night of 7 Dec 2025 GMT+7 and continued the following day. Both sides accused the other of initiating the fighting, while objective facts require verification from multiple sources.
From a linguistic perspective, conflict communication scholars note that some Cambodian statements, especially those from the Ministry of Defense spokesperson, deliberately use language that evokes sympathy and injustice—terms like "sovereignty," "unexpected attacks," and "innocent civilians"—rather than providing technical details of the events. This framing leads audiences to perceive the situation primarily through the lens of loss and victimhood, a form of "discursive strategy" that states often employ to rapidly build domestic support and attract international attention.
This strategy is not new in world history. Historical and political science studies show that adopting the stance of the "victim" has been repeatedly used to legitimize political positions during periods when full facts are not yet available. A notable example is the Gulf War of 1990–1991, where information about civilian impacts was widely disseminated before later reviews revealed some data stemmed more from political communication than from field evidence.
Similarly, conflicts in the Balkans during the 1990s emphasized historical suffering and victim imagery to simplify complex disputes and make political and military actions appear more legitimate to the public.
The 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident is a classic case study showing how framing an event as an "attack" in communication can shape state-level decision-making and global public perception before facts are retrospectively examined.
Lessons from these cases reflect that communication can become a battlefield even before military clashes escalate and emphasize the necessity of distinguishing between statements, claims, and verifiable information.
On the other hand, Thailand’s communication approach, according to domestic and international media reports, typically emphasizes restraint, calls for negotiation mechanisms, and managing the situation through diplomatic frameworks. This does not imply surrender but rather creates space for fact-finding and diplomacy to work, reducing the risk of escalation and harm to civilians.
Ultimately, the key lesson from this situation is that language and words wield power comparable to weapons. If many countries adopt a rhetorical strategy of portraying themselves as "victims" before facts are verified, conflicts are likely to prolong and become harder to resolve. The world could gradually become another battlefield in terms of communication, and if all parties play this game, long-term peace may recede further than expected.