Opinion: Do 13 International Observers Not Recognize Gunfire? Questioning Thailand’s “Firecracker” Claim at O’Smach

Phnom Penh, April 30, 2026 — Thailand’s assertion that only firecrackers were used during the April 29 border incident at O’Smach raises a critical question: are 13 international military observers unable to distinguish between firecrackers and live gunfire?

Cambodia has firmly rejected the Thai explanation, maintaining that live fire was clearly observed during an official visit by international military attachés. According to Cambodia’s Ministry of National Defence, the incident was neither fabricated nor exaggerated, but was directly witnessed by trained observers familiar with military equipment and weapon systems. Photographic evidence and precise timing were also documented, reinforcing Cambodia’s position.

The facts presented by Cambodia are specific and difficult to dismiss. Thai forces allegedly fired multiple rounds in five separate instances between 10:35 AM and 11:09 AM, using weapons identified as M16 rifles and an M79 grenade launcher. This occurred during a pre-arranged and officially notified inspection visit conducted under established bilateral coordination mechanisms.

In contrast, Thailand’s claim—delivered by spokesman Surasant Kongsiri—that only “three firecrackers” were used as warning signals appears not only inconsistent with these observations, but also raises concerns about credibility. If the visit was formally coordinated and internationally observed, the margin for misunderstanding is extremely limited.

More importantly, the presence of international observers fundamentally changes the nature of the incident. This is no longer a bilateral dispute based solely on competing narratives—it is an incident with independent witnesses.

Cambodia has described the incident as a violation of the December 27, 2025 ceasefire agreement, while reaffirming its commitment to peaceful resolution, international law, and ASEAN principles. The country’s response has remained measured, emphasizing restraint despite what it considers a serious breach.

At its core, this issue is not just about what happened at the border—it is about credibility, accountability, and respect for international mechanisms. When trained observers are present and a basic fact is still disputed, the question becomes unavoidable:

As tensions continue, the role of evidence and transparency will be critical. In situations like this, facts should not be flexible—and international observers should not be ignored.