The Anutin Charnvirakul government's anger over UN rapporteur Tom Andrews' report on the human rights situation in Cambodia comes as no surprise.
The document, particularly its references to Cambodia's internally displaced persons and unresolved border disputes, touches on a long-running source of tension between Thailand and Cambodia. Phnom Penh has repeatedly highlighted the issue, knowing it would provoke a strong reaction from Thailand.
Such diplomatic embarrassment was anticipated, if not warned about, by scholars and analysts after armed clashes erupted last July over disputed areas in southern Isan.
Several experts urged the government to prioritise diplomacy over military responses and adopt a proportionate approach to prevent the conflict from escalating.
Instead of focusing primarily on territorial disputes, they argued that both governments should address scam networks operating in Cambodia, where Thais and foreigners have been lured, abused and, in some cases, killed in scam compounds. While Thai media has focused heavily on border clashes and political exchanges, international attention on Cambodia has largely centred on these criminal networks.
But Mr Anutin, who has benefited politically from nationalist sentiment, chose a different approach. As a result, the conflict quickly expanded, with losses on both sides.
Although a ceasefire has been observed, the situation remains far from peaceful. With border crossings still closed, communities along the frontier continue to bear the impact, while compensation and rehabilitation measures remain limited.
Meanwhile, hawkish nationalism continues to dominate the debate. As conflicts around the world have shown, starting a war is easy; ending one is not.
Questions have been raised over whether the figure of more than 20,000 internally displaced persons cited in the rapporteur's report is accurate, and whether Phnom Penh is using the issue for political purposes.
It is not the first time Cambodia has used the matter to criticise Thailand, knowing that nationalist voices here would react strongly. However, Mr Anutin's criticism of the rapporteur has overshadowed other important aspects of the report, including criticism of Cambodia's restrictions on media freedom and human rights violations against political activists and opposition figures under the Hun Sen and Hun Manet governments.
When the report is presented to the UN Human Rights Council, Thailand should respond with evidence and data rather than simply rejecting the findings. It must demonstrate that any territory occupied during military operations complies with international law.
The rise of nationalism surrounding the Thai-Cambodian territorial dispute is dangerous. While the benefits of confrontation remain questionable, the loss of business opportunities and livelihoods for border communities is already clear.
The Anutin government should revive the Joint Border Committee and allow bilateral mechanisms to address the dispute through technical discussions, including the use of modern mapping technology.
Above all, the territorial issue must not be politicised.
It is time for Mr Anutin and his government to accept that an unresolved border dispute will only deepen animosity and represent a missed opportunity for both countries.
