By last week, tensions on the borders between Thailand and Cambodia had reached levels unseen for decades.
The BBC reported that at least 32 soldiers and civilians had been killed and about 200,000 displaced in the two South-East Asian countries in the series of skirmishes and conflicts that started at the end of May. Martial law was declared in several Thai provinces. The Cambodian side sent rockets over the border, while Thailand responded with F-16 strikes. Thailand’s acting Prime Minister, Phumtham Wechayachai, warned that the situation “could escalate into a state of war”.
This was not only shocking for the two countries and the region. It was potentially disastrous for the Association of South-East Asian Nations. One of the express purposes of forming the regional bloc in 1967 – which today includes all South-East Asian countries apart from Timor Leste – was to stop war and to promote economic and security co-operation among its members instead.
Asean’s current chair, Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, said in a speech to the Asean Secretariat in Jakarta on Tuesday: “Two months ago, when we had the Asean-GCC-China summit, we were talking about the unique position of Asean – the most peaceful region in the world, the most vibrant economically in the world. And then there was this eruption on the border.”
Fortunately, Mr Anwar was speaking the day after he had hosted a peace summit with the Thai leader and his Cambodian counterpart, Hun Manet, in Malaysia. Mr Anwar had contacted both men last Thursday. That could not stop hostilities straight away, but by 3pm the following Monday the two leaders were sitting in Mr Anwar’s official residence, flanked by the US ambassador to Malaysia, Edgard Kagan, and the Chinese ambassador, Ouyang Yujing.
At the end of the talks, Mr Anwar was able to announce an “unconditional ceasefire” that would start at midnight the following day – an agreement that won him praise from US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, EU foreign affairs chief Kaja Kallas and Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong, among others. Credit also went to the US, as co-organiser of the meeting, and to President Donald Trump, who had warned Cambodia and Thailand that there would be no trade deals with either until they stopped the fighting.
So what was the dispute about exactly, why did it escalate so quickly, and how was it apparently resolved with equal celerity?
Nominally, the disputes go back to varying maps drawn around the Franco-Siamese treaties of 1904 and 1907, which defined the borders of Siam (now Thailand) and French Indochina, the western-most portion of which is modern Cambodia. The latter fought and won a case over ownership of the temple of Preah Vihear at the International Court of Justice in 1962, but that and other issues have never been settled to both parties’ satisfaction. Clashes between 2008 and 2011 left scores dead until both sides agreed to withdraw military forces from an area near the temple.
It is true that both Cambodia and Thailand have a historical sensitivity to loss of territory. Cambodia harks back to the glory days of the great Khmer Empire, centred around the temple complex of Angkor Wat; but over the centuries it lost most of its lands, and even Siem Reap province – where Angkor is located – had been ruled by Thailand in the past. The latter, meanwhile, lost lands to the east, including most of Laos, to the French, and four southern states to British Malaya. Politicians in the two countries have been accused of using these anxieties to stoke nationalist fervour for their own ends.
In the recent conflict, both sides insist the other fired the first shot. Equally, there are parties on both sides that had something to gain from the fighting. Politicians from Thailand’s ruling Thaksin Shinawatra-aligned Pheu Thai Party and Cambodian opposition leader Sam Rainsy allege Phnom Penh is unhappy with Bangkok’s crackdown on Cambodia-based online scam centres and wanted to undermine the Thai government.
So Hun Sen, Cambodia’s long-time former leader, father of the current Prime Minister, and now president of the country’s Senate, not only looked strong and bolstered the government’s popularity domestically by taking a strong rhetorical stand militarily. He also undermined former Thai prime minister – and Thaksin’s daughter – Paetongtarn Shinawatra and possibly her family, when he leaked a phone call in June in which she addressed him deferentially and criticised a commander in her country’s powerful army. That led to Ms Paetongtarn herself being suspended as PM last month.
That will have delighted the significant elements in the Thai royalist-military establishment who have long resented Mr Thaksin, and strengthened their position politically. While the Thai army has also gained from being seen to defend the country during the conflict, Hun Sen may also feel that in the long run his possible political destruction of the Thaksin family (hitherto his very close friends) may have set him and his son up for better relations with a future military-dominated government in Thailand.
In short, parties in both countries may have sought advantage from ramping up the sabre-rattling, but they had no desire whatsoever for a full-blown war – and were thus extremely receptive to a face-saving path to de-escalation with honour.
The above is a possible explanation; no one is 100 per cent certain why such a long-running dispute blew up so furiously. It should also be pointed out that Monday’s agreement has not solved the underlying issue. But it has brought peace for now, and that is cause for congratulations to Mr Anwar, US President Donald Trump, China, for its presence at the summit – and to Asean. For Mr Anwar was clear that credit lay with the association for its convening power and for its values of “dialogue, mutual respect, and a shared commitment to stability”.
As he said on Tuesday, referring to the previous day’s meeting: “I’ve chosen to invite not only the two leaders from Cambodia and Thailand, but to keep the US representative to my right, and China to my left. It was a remarkable feat that not many regional groups can do, but we did – the Asean way.”
This conflict could have been a stain on Malaysia’s chairing of Asean for 2025. Instead, it has been turned into a triumph. No wonder Mr Anwar was smiling as he spoke.
