[…] Why do Thai journalists publish thing that is not true? […] There are entire video clips. It caused confusion for Prime Minister Anutin [Charnvirakul] since when he was in Hanoi, saying that “Hun Sen is preparing to take back that land through both peaceful means and military means”. It has made things understood that way. So, I would like to send a message to all Thai journalists to please inspect carefully. Falsely reporting create a great confusion. Should that arise from journalists?
Yesterday, I raised the issue of one side being a military solution and the other of being a peaceful solution. I asked the people do you want a military solution? We have only two options – either we take back our land using military force, or we take back our land through peaceful means. The people all raised their hands to prove that they do not want the military option. Previously, the Prime Minister, as well as all relevant parties, said we would resolve it peacefully. This time, I am going to clearly explain it to the people the consequences of using military force.
I think this is just an additional explanation. Importantly, I ask Thai journalists to re-watch that video carefully. I said that if we use a military solution — for example, we attack and take back that territory — the first bullet shot would be Cambodia’s failure in political and diplomatic affairs. Why? Because we would become violators of the ceasefire. We would destroy the so-called international trust in us. At this moment, no one in the international community believes that Cambodia would invade Thailand. Let’s be honest. No small country would attack and defeat a large country.
The Thai Army has clearly announced that Cambodians had been living on Thai land for 30 or 40 years, so Thailand must use force to take it back. What does that mean? When weapons were fired in July 2025, the question was raised as to who fired first? Well, only the attacker fires first. I want to say that in this same case, if we were to take it back, we would be the ones to fire first. So, we would be at false. That is the political consequence.
As for the military consequence, we can predict in advance that soldiers will be killed or wounded. Civilians will die and be injured, and many more will be displaced. Moreover, a military solution does not guarantee that we can win. Therefore, using a military solution is not an option we should take. I point this out because overseas extremists have urged us to use force. A military solution would be – firstly, it does not guarantee we can take it back; secondly, even if we take it back, it does not guarantee it will help us (to keep it safe for long). Even more serious is the fact that there will be fighting back and forth that prolongs the resolution for generations of our children and grandchildren. That is the problem.
The Thai Prime Minister has said Thailand never had made invasion. Hence, whether there is or there is no invasion — we must implement point number three of the ceasefire agreement, which calls for demarcation to proceed. That third point clearly stated: (reading the point three of the ceasefire deal).
Today, His Excellency Tea Seiha, Deputy Prime Minister, and Minister of National Defense, is here. He is the one who signed that (ceasefire agreement). The Thai side, however, has delayed again and again. For one, they used the excuse that they dissolved the government — they said the caretaker government had no authority. When a new government was formed, they said the new chairman had not yet been appointed. Now they say bilateral negotiations have stopped because Cambodia has submitted the maritime issue under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which includes a mechanism for compulsory conciliation. But this issue is unrelated. One is a land border, the other is a maritime boundary. Such evasion is unacceptable.
I want to ask a question regarding National Road No. 58, which China built, and now Thailand is placing containers and other things there — is China blind or what? Is China blind to have built a road for Cambodia on Thai land? I want to ask directly. If you are sincere, come and demarcate — because we agreed on this matter since December 27 (of last year).
Nevertheless, I do not want to interpret too much. I want to point out to the Thai medias what your intention is in saying that Hun Sen has combined both measures — military and peaceful — regarding the territory that Thailand has seized? I did not choose the military option. I pointed out the importance of resolving through peaceful means. I make this the policy of the Cambodian People’s Party for the 2027 election campaign and for the 2028 election campaign. The Cambodian People’s Party adheres to a policy of peaceful resolution. Let the opposition parties put forward (their policies). The only policy left for you (the opposition) is to fight.
If you choose peaceful resolution, then you are just repeating what I said. That means you are following the Cambodian People’s Party. In that case, why do you criticize me? Normally, I don’t close the stable door after the horse had left. To be honest, let me tell all political parties, especially the radical opposition parties that want the government to launch an (military) attack to take back the territory illegally held by Thailand that we do not recognize border changes through use of force. We will not tolerate it. That is why we have named this place “While-in-waiting Village,” meaning we are not here for life.
We are waiting for our houses and our land to be returned through peaceful means, not through military means. A military solution can prolong conflicts across generations. Only a peaceful solution can achieve a sustainable outcome — a long-term title, durable arrangement that lasts for generations. I call on the Thai authorities to correct the information they have published about my speeches clearly. I hope that Thai politicians are not fooled to believe the fake news created by Thai journalists. Thai journalists also have people who speak Khmer. Let them translate it. Is there any statement I made about using both peaceful means and armed force? I did not say a single word.
On the contrary, I oppose using force to take back territory. I leave it to the opposition parties in Cambodia to put forward competing policies on resolving the border issue between Cambodia and Thailand. That is about this much that I had to say — please pay attention to the issue of media. Now, both Cambodia and Thailand are caught up with fake news. Sometimes we in Cambodia receive false information due to fake news. Sometimes Thailand misunderstands because of fake news. Therefore, we should seek truthful information to build trust and avoid confusion. Confusion is dangerous.
I simply opened the stage and allowed it to be broadcast. Let me emphasize, yesterday I went to Banteay Meanchey. Today I came to Siem Reap. Tomorrow where I go, I will not tell. Now I will conclude. Please let the national television stations broadcast this message, live on all channels, and send the message to Bangkok to correct the misreported information. I did not speak about using force to take back our territory.
Now, do not talk about where the border is — because you haven’t even demarcated it yet. In the agreement, it speaks about the demarcation. Without demarcation, where would you plant border posts? For a border between two countries, it requires mutual recognition before you can plant posts. Our ancestors left this for over 100 years. Not only the French ancestors representing Laos and Cambodia, but the Thai ancestors — the King of Thailand at that time — agreed and signed the 1904 1904 Franco-Siamese Convention, and the 1907 Franco-Siamese Treaty./.