Thailand's First Army Region announced on 29 January that a planned signing of a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with Cambodia on local border issues has been postponed after three days of meetings at the Poipet crossing. Delegations from Thailand's First Army Region and Cambodia's Fifth Military Region met on 27–28 January to discuss disputed local issues and to draft the MoU; the document would have been signed and jointly implemented if both sides reached agreement.
The Thai statement said some items still require further consultation, so the parties did not sign the document and will reconvene the Thailand–Cambodia Boundary Committee at a later date to finalise the draft. Until a formal signature is reached, Thailand's First Army Region said it will continue to comply with previously agreed arrangements overseen by the joint boundary mechanism.
The postponement matters because these military-to-military pacts are the main instruments for managing frequent, localized tensions along the long Thailand–Cambodia border, including disputed land, troop dispositions and cross-border smuggling. Meetings at Poipet — a major land crossing and commercial hub on the western Cambodia–Thailand frontier — combine security, administrative and economic stakes for border communities on both sides.
History shows such delays can be benign or a signal of deeper disagreement. Thailand and Cambodia have used joint committees and ad hoc military talks for years to prevent small incidents from escalating, particularly after the flare-ups around the Preah Vihear area and other frontier localities in the past decade. A failed or delayed accord increases the operational uncertainty for local commanders and prolongs anxiety for residents and traders dependent on cross-border traffic.
The decision to postpone also reflects the delicacy of negotiating military texts that must reconcile sovereign sensitivities with pragmatic measures such as buffer zones, joint patrol protocols, and demining or law-enforcement cooperation. While the Thai statement framed the pause as a technical matter needing further consultation, it nonetheless exposes the limits of current bilateral mechanisms to produce rapid, fully negotiated outcomes.
For the immediate term the risk of an acute military incident appears contained: both sides remain committed to existing boundary-committee arrangements and have an incentive to avoid escalation. The longer-term test will be whether repeated delays become a pattern that wears down confidence-building efforts or whether a reconvened committee can produce a durable, implementable agreement that stabilises the border and protects trade and communities.