AKP Phnom Penh, August 14, 2026 --

Cambodian Minister of Information H.E. Neth Pheaktra issued a detailed statement on Friday challenging the Thai military’s assertion that its military operations against Cambodia were directed solely at military targets, calling instead for independent international verification of civilian destruction and alleged war crimes.

In a public address released on Aug. 14, H.E. Minister argued that official assertions of adherence to International Humanitarian Law (IHL) fail to match physical evidence across affected border provinces following two major waves of armed conflict in July and December 2025.

The full statement reads as follows:

“Indiscriminate Attacks: When the Thai Military’s Claim That It ‘Targets Only Military Objectives’ Does Not Match the Consequences on the Ground of Its Armed Aggression

The Thai military has repeatedly claimed that its military operations against Cambodia were conducted in accordance with international humanitarian law and directed solely at military objectives, while respecting the principles of military necessity and proportionality. But a claim does not become true merely because it is repeated again and again. It must be tested against facts, evidence, the types of weapons used, the locations attacked, and the actual consequences for civilians.

When we examine the consequences on Cambodian territory, a fundamental question arises: if all the targets were genuinely military objectives, why did civilians, homes, villages, religious sites, civilian infrastructure, and cultural heritage become victims of heavy explosive weapons?

1. Facts on the Ground Cannot Be Erased by Statements

During the two rounds of armed aggression against Cambodian territory, in July and December 2025, Thai forces used F-16 fighter jets, air strikes, heavy artillery, and rockets. Human Rights Watch documented civilian deaths and injuries and geolocated imagery showing damage to buildings and a Buddhist temple in Kok Mon commune, Oddar Meanchey province.

In Cambodia’s official submission to the United Nations Security Council, Cambodia reported that bombs dropped by Thai F-16 aircraft struck the compound of Ta Moan Senchey Pagoda on 24 July 2025, killing a monk. On 25 July, further air strikes were also reported, including in the area of Ta Krabei Temple.

Accordingly, the nature and legality of these attacks cannot be assessed solely on the basis of the attacking party’s assertion that the targets were ‘military objectives.’ It must be determined whether each target was genuinely a military objective; whether the weapons used were capable of limiting their effects; whether feasible precautions were taken to protect civilians; and whether the expected civilian harm was excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

2. F-16s, Heavy Artillery and Heavy Weapons: The Effects Do Not Stop at the ‘Target Point’

The central issue is not simply where a weapon was aimed, but what type of weapon was used, in what environment, and how wide an area its effects could reach.

The consequences extend far beyond immediate deaths and injuries. They include the destruction of buildings, disruption of health and education services, damage to civilian infrastructure and cultural heritage, and the forced displacement of civilian populations.

This is essential when assessing the claim that the Thai military ‘targeted only military objectives.’ The mere designation of a point on a map as a military target does not automatically make the use of any weapon against that point lawful.

3. Cluster Munitions: A Serious Challenge to the Claim of ‘Military Targets Only’

In July 2025, the Thai military acknowledged that it had used cluster munitions when it considered them necessary against military targets. Human Rights Watch observed that the use of such weapons in populated areas may constitute an unlawfully indiscriminate attack.

The characteristics of cluster munitions make this issue particularly serious. These weapons can disperse dozens or hundreds of submunitions over a wide area. Some submunitions fail to explode on impact and may remain on the ground like landmines, continuing to threaten civilians long after active hostilities have ended.

A tragic incident occurred on 25 October 2025 in Preah Vihear province. Ten-year-old Seun Sovann was killed and his father was seriously injured in an explosion. The Cambodian Mine Action Centre identified the device as an unexploded M-85 submunition that it said had been fired into Cambodia during the July fighting, while the Thai military rejected that conclusion. Human Rights Watch called for an investigation by an independent and competent international body.

The case illustrates a fundamental point: the consequences of cluster munitions do not end when the guns fall silent.

4. December 2025: The Scale of Destruction Became Even More Severe

When armed aggression erupted again in December 2025, the humanitarian crisis expanded dramatically.

A Humanitarian Response Forum report issued by the United Nations on 27 December documented the use of heavy artillery, F-16 aircraft, and drones, including in and around populated areas. During this second round of hostilities in December, approximately 650,000 people were displaced, including 336,302 women and 204,992 children. Civilian casualties were reported at 32 killed and 94 injured.

In April 2026, the United Nations assessed that the first wave of displacement in July had forced more than 172,000 people from their homes, while the renewed fighting in December generated a far larger second wave, reaching approximately 650,000 displaced persons by the end of the month.

5. Civilian Homes and Infrastructure Are Not Automatically Military Objectives

The aftermath of the fighting did not reveal damage only to military positions. The Associated Press reported on Cambodian civilians returning to find their homes and property burned or damaged in Oddar Meanchey province following the July fighting.

Under international humanitarian law, civilian homes, schools, hospitals, religious sites, and civilian infrastructure are, as a general rule, civilian objects. They may not be attacked unless, and for such time as, they meet the legal criteria of a military objective.

Human Rights Watch has summarized the applicable principle clearly: parties to a conflict must at all times distinguish between combatants and civilians, and attacks that cannot distinguish between military objectives and civilians, or that are expected to cause civilian harm excessive in relation to the concrete military advantage anticipated, are prohibited.

6. Cultural Heritage Also Came Under Fire

Thai air strikes and artillery fire caused damage to Ta Krabei Temple and the Temple of Preah Vihear, a UNESCO World Heritage property. On 10 December 2025, UNESCO expressed ‘deep concern’ over renewed hostilities, including fighting near the Temple of Preah Vihear, and reminded all parties of their obligations under international law.

UNESCO also provided geographic coordinates of the World Heritage property and other important sites to the parties concerned in order to help prevent damage.

7. International Humanitarian Law Does Not Measure Legality by ‘Intent’ Alone

Saying, ‘We did not intend to attack civilians,’ is not sufficient to establish that an attack was lawful.

International humanitarian law requires respect for at least three fundamental principles: distinction, proportionality, and precautions in attack.

This means that an attacking party must verify its targets, choose means and methods of warfare that reduce risks to civilians, and refrain from attacks expected to cause incidental civilian deaths, injuries, or damage to civilian objects that would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

The questions that must therefore be asked are these: Were the Thai military’s actual targets genuinely military objectives? Were the weapons used appropriate to the circumstances? Could civilian harm have been reduced? Were sufficient precautions taken? And was the civilian harm proportionate to the military advantage anticipated?

8. ‘Military Objective’ Is Not a Magic Phrase That Erases Responsibility

If the Thai military maintains that all of its attacks were lawful and directed exclusively at military objectives, those claims should withstand independent verification.

On what intelligence was each target selected? Was the presence of civilians assessed before each attack? Why were weapons with wide-area effects, including cluster munitions, used? Was a proportionality assessment conducted beforehand? Were alternative weapons, timing, or methods available that could have reduced civilian harm?

These are not political questions. They are questions that the law itself requires to be answered.

Evidence on the Ground Must Carry Greater Weight Than Denial

Thai military statements may assert that attacks were limited to military objectives. But what must ultimately be assessed are the facts and the consequences of each attack.

Civilians killed and injured; homes destroyed; religious sites damaged; cultural heritage placed at risk; hundreds of thousands of people forced from their homes; and unexploded cluster submunitions that may continue to threaten human life long after the fighting — these are facts that demand careful examination.

What is therefore required is not the automatic acceptance of any party’s claim, but the documentation of evidence, independent verification, and a legal assessment of each attack under international humanitarian law.

In war, the statement ‘we targeted only military objectives’ cannot erase bomb craters. It cannot rebuild destroyed homes. It cannot remove unexploded cluster munitions from the ground. And it cannot restore the lives of civilians who have been killed.

Those who claim that their attacks were lawful should have nothing to fear from independent verification. If every target was genuinely a military objective, if proportionality was respected, and if all feasible precautions were taken, the evidence should be capable of demonstrating that. But denial without disclosure of supporting evidence cannot substitute for investigation.

The truth must be measured by the evidence on the ground, not by the claims or denials of those who used the weapons.”

AKP