Air force tracks suspect drones in Ubon Ratchathani
An initial inspection report showed the drones had no cameras or other modifications, ACM Punpakdee Pattanakul, the air force commander, said on Wednesday.
He said other drone activity had been detected in many areas of Bangkok, but details were still not known. They might be harmless civilian models, the commander added.
Because of the security risks arising from current Thai-Cambodian border tensions, the Civil Aviation Authority of Thailand (CAAT) has banned drones in a number of provinces.
The ban covers Buri Ram, Chai Nat, Chanthaburi, Lop Buri, Nakhon Ratchasima, Nakhon Sawan, Phetchabun, Phichit, Prachin Buri, Sa Kaeo, Si Sa Ket, Surin, Trat and Ubon Ratchathani.
The CAAT also prohibits drones within a radius of nine kilometres or five nautical miles from airports and temporary landing strips. Violators face punishment of up to one year in prison and/or up to 40,000 baht in fines.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bangkok Post
6 hours ago
- Bangkok Post
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. 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. Drafted in the aftermath of World War II, these conventions were never intended to regulate digital conflict. Cyberattacks, autonomous weapon systems, and psychological manipulation via social media were simply beyond the imagination of the 1949 drafters. As such, these texts are ill-equipped to confront the realities of 21st-century warfare, particularly the kind now unfolding between Thailand and Cambodia. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has acknowledged this gap. While reaffirming that any use of force, whether physical or cyber, must comply with the UN Charter, particularly Article 2(4), which prohibits aggression, the organisation has also recognised the growing challenge that digital operations pose to civilian protection. What, then, is information warfare? Information warfare (IW) is a broad term encompassing a range of activities intended to influence, disrupt, or manipulate public perception, decision-making processes, and communications infrastructure. These include hacking, disinformation, propaganda, and psychological operations, carried out through social media platforms, encrypted apps, and even AI-generated content. In today's conflict, the Thai public has been bombarded with false narratives, inflammatory images, and viral accusations. IW has reached Thai citizens not just on the battlefield, but in their living rooms. With internet access and smartphones, everyone becomes a potential target and an unknowing participant. The law is currently struggling to keep up. Under IHL, protection hinges on concepts like "attack", "combatant", and "military objective": terms that assume physical consequences. Geneva Convention IV, which governs the protection of civilians, prohibits acts such as targeting civilian objects and collective punishment. But it is silent on the use of harmful but non-kinetic tactics like online incitement, election interference, or coordinated psychological destabilisation campaigns. Unless a direct, tangible link to physical harm can be proven, these digital acts remain in a legal grey zone. And yet we know, from bitter experience, that words can kill. Hate speech spread through digital platforms has been linked to ethnic violence in Myanmar, communal riots in India, and even genocide in Rwanda, where radio propaganda laid the foundation for mass atrocities. The threshold between speech and violence is thinner than we think, especially when incitement is deliberate and systematic. So, can international law be stretched to meet this moment? One promising avenue lies in International Human Rights Law (IHRL). The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Cambodia is a state party, explicitly prohibits "any propaganda for war" and any advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence. These provisions can, and should, be invoked when information warfare crosses the line from opinion to incitement. Moreover, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court provides legal grounds to prosecute individuals who incite or participate in attacks against civilian populations, especially when such acts are part of an official policy or strategy. In theory, information warfare that results in real-world violence could meet the criteria for crimes against humanity or war crimes. But in practice, accountability is elusive. Building a legal case that links a viral post to a violent act requires extraordinary evidence. The threshold for criminal prosecution at the international level is high, and digital trails are often obscured or erased. Prosecuting IW under current international legal frameworks remains a daunting task. So where does this leave us? It leaves us with responsibility. While international mechanisms may be slow to respond, states can, and must, act. Thailand cannot afford to be reactive. It must engage proactively on all fronts: legal, diplomatic, communicative, and societal. First, it must counter falsehoods with facts swiftly and transparently. Government communication channels should be mobilised to correct misinformation in real time. Silence or hesitation creates a vacuum that misinformation will eagerly fill. Second, Thailand must work with digital platforms to identify and remove harmful content. Collaboration with tech companies, civil society, and international partners is essential to strengthen content moderation and counter-speech. Third, the government should work through diplomatic channels to raise the issue in regional forums such as Asean. If information warfare is the new front line, then a collective response is needed. Thailand could spearhead an Asean initiative to develop a regional code of digital conduct, guiding principles for state and non-state actors on disinformation, election integrity, and hate speech. Fourth, it is time to invest in digital literacy. A population equipped to discern truth from manipulation is a powerful antidote to propaganda. Civil society and educational institutions should be empowered to teach media literacy, critical thinking, and responsible digital engagement. Finally, Thailand has an opportunity to shape the future of law itself. By pushing for the modernisation of IHL and the development of soft law instruments governing cyber and information operations, Thailand can help set the agenda for how wars are fought and how civilians are protected in the digital age. The current conflict is dangerous, but it also presents a moment of clarity. The old laws are no longer enough. The battlefield has expanded, and so must our tools for peace and accountability. The drama may wear many faces, but it is law, truth, and cooperation that must take centre stage. Assistant Professor Pawat Satayanurug, PhD, is the Vice Dean of Research and Academic Resources, Programme Director for the Master of Laws (Thai Programme) at Chulalongkorn University's Faculty of Law.
Bangkok Post
6 hours ago
- Bangkok Post
Cambodian soldiers to be repatriated on Friday
Thailand is set to repatriate 20 Cambodian soldiers today through the Chong Chom permanent border checkpoint in Surin province at 10am. The move comes amid efforts to counter false reports from Cambodia accusing Thailand of abducting the soldiers, according to a military source. According to the Second Army Region, the Cambodian soldiers were found in Thai territory on Tuesday after clashes in the Sam Taet area of Si Sa Ket province. Thai authorities have provided them with care based on international humanitarian principles, the army said. Among the soldiers to be sent back, one sustained a broken arm while another suffered psychological trauma as a result of combat exposure, it said. The Thai military stressed that the handover underscores Thailand's commitment to international norms and humanitarian treatment and serves to correct misleading narratives circulating in Cambodian media. Meanwhile, the Royal Thai Army has rejected Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Manet's accusation that Thailand abducted the Cambodian soldiers. Army spokesman Maj Gen Winthai Suvaree said on Thursday that the soldiers had surrendered peacefully and were now in Thai custody. "We treated them as soldiers, not criminals. They laid down their arms without resistance, and from the start, we've upheld international law," he said. "These soldiers are individuals with honour, serving their country. As military personnel ourselves, we respect that." "Some parties have tried to label the situation as an abduction or even a prisoner-of-war situation. This is incorrect and may affect our standing in international forums," he added. Maj Gen Winthai said the Cambodian soldiers were being charged with illegal entry under Thai law. Additional charges, such as possession of weapons and violation of sovereignty, would depend on the outcome of official investigations, he noted. Deputy Defence Minister Gen Nattaphon Narkphanit, who also heads the ad-hoc Thai-Cambodian border conflict management centre, said the detained soldiers had been well cared for, with access to hygiene facilities and medical treatment for those injured. "Originally, we were preparing to return them. But after Cambodia accused us of kidnapping them, we had to protect ourselves by formally documenting the facts," he said. "The most effective way to respond to misinformation is with facts. It may not be swift or satisfying, but truth always yields better results." Acting Prime Minister Phumtham Wechayachai said the soldiers had crossed the border on Tuesday when the Thai-Cambodian ceasefire was declared. According to a report by the Khmer Times, Cambodian Ministry of Defence spokesman Lt Gen Maly Socheata said that of 21 detained military personnel, Cambodia has received the body of one soldier, while the others are still being held.
Bangkok Post
18 hours ago
- Bangkok Post
House committee condemns Cambodian violations of international rules
The House Committee on Legal Affairs, Justice and Human Rights has issued a strong condemnation of Cambodia, accusing it of violating international treaties amid tensions along the Thai-Cambodian border that claimed many lives of civilians and troops. Committee chairman Kamolsak Leewamoh, a Prachachat MP for Narathiwat province joined members on Thursday at a press conference to express deep regret over the intensifying violence along the border and extended condolences to all those affected, including families of soldiers and civilians. Mr Kamolsak said the panel, which is duty-bound to monitor Thailand's compliance with the rule of law and international obligations, saw fit to document and respond to violations that undermine peace, stability and fundamental human rights. On July 23, a Thai soldier was critically injured when a landmine exploded in Nam Yuen district of Ubon Ratchathani province — an act deemed a violation of the Ottawa Convention, to which Cambodia and Thailand are signatories, said the panel chairman. The following day, a Cambodian drone reportedly entered Thai airspace near the Ta Muen Thom ruins in Phanom Dongrak district of Surin province before Cambodian forces opened fire on a Thai military base at about 6pm, escalating the situation rapidly. The following morning, Cambodian forces launched BM-21 rockets into civilian bases in Kap Choeng district of Surin, causing many injuries. Worse still, continued shelling targeted residential zones and civilian infrastructure across several provinces, including Buri Ram, Surin, Ubon Ratchathani and Si Sa Ket in the lower Northeast of Thailand. Among the damaged sites were homes, a petrol station and 7-Eleven where eight civilians died, and the Phanom Dong Rak Hospital. Cambodia's attacks resulted in 13 civilian deaths in all, 32 injuries and casualties among Thai troops — one death and 14 injuries, said the House panel. The indiscriminate targeting of civilians and non-military infrastructure, it argued, clearly violates the Geneva Conventions, particularly the principles of distinction and proportionality. The actions may also amount to war crimes under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, said the panel. On July 25, the Thai military officially confirmed that Cambodian forces initiated the hostilities, suggesting a pattern of deliberate and systematic aggression. The committee stated that Cambodia's conduct constitutes clear violations of: The Ottawa Convention, by deploying anti-personnel mines; The Geneva Conventions and customary international humanitarian law, by targeting civilians and civilian objects indiscriminately; The Rome Statute, for potential war crimes involving attacks on civilians and medical facilities. The committee urged an immediate halt to violence and a return to peaceful dialogue as the path toward conflict resolution. It also condemned false and misleading statements that contradict official accounts provided by the Thai Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the government and the Parliament speaker. It demanded that Cambodia cease the dissemination of disinformation, which could exacerbate the crisis. The committee reaffirmed the need for transparent dialogue, accountability and sustained peace-building efforts in the border region. It stressed that strict adherence to international law is essential to prevent further loss of life and to restore the rule of law.
