Thailand’s top diplomat, Foreign Affairs Minister Maris Sangiampongsa, has leveled a sharp public charge: Cambodia is repeatedly breaching the Ottawa Convention and trampling on Thailand’s sovereignty by laying anti-personnel landmines along their shared border. The dramatic accusation was delivered via video briefing during the 10th Mekong-Lancang Cooperation Foreign Ministers’ Meeting in Anning, China — a session that drew 67 participants from 41 countries, one organisation and four international agencies to the Foreign Affairs Ministry on August 15.
The claim in context
In his address, Maris stressed that Thailand has not only honoured its obligations under the Ottawa Convention but has also led by example in mine clearance and victim support. Over the past two decades, Thailand says it has cleared and returned more than 99% of land once contaminated by anti-personnel mines — roughly 2,500 square kilometres — to communities eager to farm, travel and rebuild normal life.
Beyond clearing explosives, he emphasised consistent support for survivors: rehabilitation programs, social reintegration, and initiatives to help victims live with dignity. Those efforts, Maris argued, are part of a global humanitarian push to reduce the human cost of landmines — a mission he says is being undermined by the recent incidents along the Thai-Cambodian frontier.
Ceasefire, then setbacks
On August 7, Thailand and Cambodia convened an extraordinary session of the General Border Committee in Kuala Lumpur and agreed to a ceasefire — an accord Thailand asserts it has fully respected. Yet, Maris told the Anning meeting that within five days of the ceasefire two more mine-related incidents occurred, during which Thai soldiers encountered newly laid anti-personnel mines. According to the Thai account, evidence points to Cambodian forces as the source of the new devices.
Those incidents, if verified, would represent not only a security breach but also a violation of the spirit — and letter — of the Ottawa Convention. Maris requested that the international community, donor nations and diplomatic partners press Cambodia to cease using such weapons and to fulfil its legal obligations under the convention. Thailand has also taken the matter to the United Nations Secretary-General, seeking an explanation under Article 8, paragraph 2 of the Ottawa Convention.
Forensics and denials
Bangkok’s accusation includes a technical detail: the mines recently discovered were PMN-2 types. The Thailand Mine Action Centre reports it cleared around 1,300 old explosives in the region, but none matched the PMN-2 signature found in the latest incidents — a point Bangkok uses to argue that the mines were not leftover relics from past wars, but newly planted devices.
Cambodia, however, has a different version. According to Major General Winthai Suwaree, spokesperson for the Royal Thai Army (speaking about Cambodia’s stance), Phnom Penh has consistently denied responsibility and called into question Thailand’s narrative. Cambodia maintains that any mines found may be remnants from earlier conflicts — an argument Thailand disputes with its clearance data and forensic observations.
International law and the diplomatic ripple effect
At Anning, Maris framed the issue as more than a bilateral spat: it’s a test of international humanitarian law and the credibility of conventions designed to eradicate anti-personnel mines. He warned that Cambodia’s actions, as alleged, would erode the integrity of the Ottawa Convention and contradict the Siem Reap-Angkor Declaration endorsed in November 2024 when Cambodia chaired the relevant forum.
Diplomats present at the briefing reportedly supported the legal principles Maris invoked, and he urged donor countries and international agencies — many of whom are funding mine clearance and development projects in Cambodia — to monitor the situation closely and press for compliance.
Why it matters
Landmines aren’t just a military tool; they are a long-term humanitarian catastrophe. Beyond immediate injuries and deaths, mines lock communities out of farmland, schools and trade routes for generations. Thailand’s message is at once practical and moral: the region cannot make progress if civilians and soldiers alike are endangered by weapons that cling to the ground long after conflicts end.
Whether the latest incidents will prompt a joint fact-finding mission, UN involvement, or renewed diplomatic pressure remains to be seen. What is clear in Maris’s message is a call for accountability, transparency and a recommitment to treaties designed to protect civilians — and a plea that the border between neighbours be governed by law, not landmines.
Photo credit: Thai Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Cambodia is blatantly violating the Ottawa Convention and endangering civilians and soldiers by laying new PMN-2 mines along our border. We have cleared 99% of contaminated land and expect our neighbours to follow the law and basic decency.
If those are really PMN-2s that weren’t in the clearance records, that’s a smoking gun, but how transparent will the forensics be? International monitors need full access, not just press statements.
You’re assuming Thailand’s data is unbiased; border disputes always come with propaganda. Could be false-flag claims to justify militarization of border villages.
Accusations of propaganda don’t negate the physical evidence our teams recovered; we invited UN review and have documentation. Suggesting false flags without evidence insults victims on both sides.
From a legal standpoint, Article 8 requests to the UN are the right pathway; forensic chain-of-custody and independent verification will decide credibility. We must avoid escalatory rhetoric until impartial findings are released.
I just want the farmers to be able to plow without worrying about stepping on a bomb. Politics aside, people need their land back.
This isn’t just a bilateral spat — it’s about the credibility of international treaties and donor funding for clearance projects. Donors should demand accountability before writing more cheques.
Donors already prop up a lot of government projects in the region; if Cambodia is implicated they should freeze funds until compliance is proven. No money for violators.
As someone from Cambodia, I find this narrative one-sided; our government says these are old mines, and freezing funds would hurt civilians more than officials. Diplomacy, not punishments.
Freezing funds is harsh but sometimes necessary to force transparency; targeted support to NGOs on the ground could help civilians while pressuring governments. It’s not black-and-white.
How can anyone trust clearance statistics in a tense border region? Data manipulation happens when national security is at stake. Independent UN or ICRC teams should inspect sites immediately.
Independent inspections are essential, but the geopolitical balance matters: China hosted the meeting where this was raised, and regional powers will influence any inquiry. Expect slow diplomacy.
Slow diplomacy costs lives. Waiting months for consensus is unacceptable when civilians risk stepping on mines; stopgap measures and cross-border humanitarian patrols could help now.
Technically, the Ottawa Convention mechanisms rely on state cooperation; there is no automatic enforcement arm. People should be realistic about what international law can do without political will.
This is just another example of two neighbors pointing fingers instead of sorting things out at the local level. Media hype makes everything worse.
Media brings attention to human suffering; without it, those victims would be ignored. Telling people to hush is the easy path for those in power.
Attention is one thing, sensationalism is another. We need facts and calm dialogue, not nationalistic headlines that inflame border communities.
If Cambodia is found violating the treaty, it would be a huge embarrassment given its role in the Siem Reap-Angkor Declaration. Reputation costs should matter in ASEAN diplomacy.
Reputational damage only bites if peers care; ASEAN’s principle of non-interference may blunt pressure. External donors and the UN will be the main levers.
ASEAN non-interference is exactly why regional peers rarely scold Cambodia. Expect polite statements, not real pressure, unless donors pull funding.
Then donors must act responsibly; conditionality paired with humanitarian safeguards can be effective. Silence solves nothing and leaves mines in the ground.
What about victims? Rehabilitation and reintegration programs are expensive and often underfunded, regardless of who planted mines. We should amplify survivor voices.
Survivor voices matter, but we also need to be wary of using them as political props. Genuine survivor groups in Cambodia call for dialogue and aid, not geopolitics.
I’m advocating more money for NGOs and local rehab centers, not props. Too many survivors fall through the cracks because governments play politics.
From an international law perspective, the Ottawa Convention lacks an enforcement court; state conduct matters, and the political will of major donors will determine consequences. This is a test of treaty governance.
So basically law without teeth. It’s depressing to see instruments exist but fail when states refuse to comply.
Not toothless — the normative power of treaties and diplomatic costs can be persuasive, but they require coordinated pressure. Legal mechanisms and diplomacy must work in tandem.
Norms matter, but in this case forensic evidence and transparency will determine whether norms are upheld or ignored. The UN should publish findings openly.
I’m skeptical about both sides; borders have messy histories and leftover ordnance is common. Jumping to blame steals focus from long-term clearance needs.
Historical ordnance can look different from newly deployed PMN-2s though; technical signatures often reveal age and origin. Experts, not pundits, should lead the conversation.
Fair point, but experts are influenced by whoever funds them. Transparency about funding and methodology should be mandatory for any reported findings.
If Cambodia actually did this, it’s unforgivable and shows contempt for human life. But if Thailand exaggerated it, it’s equally dangerous for regional stability.
Both possibilities heighten risk. Independent, technical fact-finding with international observers is the only path to pacify claims and prevent escalation.
Agreed — an impartial mission, ideally with both countries consenting, would reduce conspiracy theories and provide closure for affected communities.
Whatever the truth, the immediate priority should be mine-risk education and safe routes for civilians near the border. Politics can wait until people are safe.