Nations have always had to negotiate shared waters. The sea carries trade and supports coastal communities. It often hides valuable resources. It can bring neighbors closer, but when claims overlap, it can also become a source of friction.
Recent incidents in the Middle East have shown that maritime stability cannot be taken for granted. It directly affects energy supplies, trade routes, food security and investor confidence.
For Cambodia, maritime stability is a pressing concern and it comes at a sensitive time in Cambodia-Thailand relations due to the dispute along our shared land border. In this context, Thailand’s threat to withdraw from a maritime agreement that maintains dialogue is particularly worrying.
For more than two decades, the 2001 Memorandum of Understanding between Cambodia and Thailand has been the only bilateral framework both governments have relied on to manage overlapping maritime claims related to potential offshore oil and gas development.
While the dispute has not been resolved, the MoU maintains two related questions on a peaceful path: how to explore the joint development of oil resources in the area of overlapping claims and how to negotiate a maritime border where delimitation is required.
Its value is practical: it allows Cambodia and Thailand to continue talking with a view to reaching an agreement while maintaining their legal positions. Removing this channel makes dialogue more difficult and increases the risk of escalation.
This is why Thailand’s recent threat to withdraw from the MoU is significant. It would not solve the maritime issue. It would make management more difficult by undermining trust at a critical time and increasing the risk of misunderstanding.
This issue extends beyond Cambodia and Thailand. The waters between our countries are part of the wider marine environment of Southeast Asia. Developments here affect regional confidence, affecting fishing communities, energy companies and investors monitoring Southeast Asia’s stability.
ASEAN has consistently advocated dialogue and the peaceful resolution of disputes. These principles are most important when they are most difficult to uphold. Cooperation is easy when relations are calm; the real test is during periods of internal tension or unresolved demands.
Cambodia does not see the 2001 MoU as a concession by either side, nor as a threat to Thailand or Cambodia. It is a tool for both countries to protect their interests while maintaining dialogue. Neighbors do not need full agreement to continue discussions.
Cambodia’s position is clear. We will defend our sovereignty responsibly and peacefully. We believe that maritime claims should be resolved through dialogue and respect for international law. Agreements intended to prevent escalation should be maintained, not abandoned.
Maritime and border disputes are complex and take time to resolve. This is why countries need established channels for dialogue. Abandoning them does not resolve disputes; makes the solution more difficult.
Southeast Asia requires predictability and respect for agreements. ASEAN is strengthened when its members demonstrate that even challenging disputes can be managed through diplomacy and respect for the law.
Thailand should uphold the 2001 Memorandum of Understanding, resume dialogue and work with Cambodia to resolve outstanding issues through negotiations and in accordance with international law.
Peace takes more than words. It relies on frameworks and commitments that prevent disputes from escalating. The 2001 Memorandum of Understanding should be strengthened, not discarded.
Neth Pheaktra is the Minister of Information of the Royal Government of Cambodia. A journalist by training, he served as managing editor of the Khmer-language edition of the Phnom Penh Post and as head of the Public Affairs Section of the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC). He previously served as Secretary of State in the Ministry of Environment.
