Time to act on information warfare

As tensions escalate along the Thai-Cambodian border, the unfolding conflict has become not only a confrontation of arms but also a war of narratives.

- PAWAT SATAYANURUG

For many in Thailand, this is the first time war has felt real. Not distant, not historical, but tangible: fighter jets in the sky, news of casualties, fear seeping into the national consciousness.

And yet, what we see and feel may not be the full story.

Alongside physical warfare, a more insidious struggle is taking place; one waged through misinformation, propaganda, and psychological manipulation.

Call it by what it is — information warfare. While conventional war leaves craters and shrapnel, information warfare leaves confusion, hatred, and division. Truths are twisted, images manipulated, and emotions weaponised.

The recent Facebook post by a prominent Cambodian public figure, which accused the Royal Thai Air Force of using chemical weapons, accompanied by an image of a California DC-10 firefighting plane spreading pink-coloured flame retardant to tackle fire, was not an isolated misstep, but could rather be seen as a calculated provocation. The intent is clear: inflame public sentiment, stir outrage, and escalate tensions; not through troops or tanks, but through a post and a click.

This weaponisation of information is not just reckless; it is strategic. It is disinformation deployed with purpose, and it raises a crucial legal question: is this kind of warfare covered under international law? The short answer is: not quite.

International Humanitarian Law (IHL), also known as the law of armed conflict, was built around conventional warfare: tanks, trenches, and treaties. The Geneva Conventions, the cornerstone of IHL, are designed to protect civilians, prisoners of war, the wounded, and medical personnel during armed conflict. They define the rules for when and how force may be used and who may be targeted. But IHL is showing its age.