Thailand-Cambodia borders close as dispute deepens
Cambodia's Prime Minister Hun Manet speaks during a visit to a military base, following a clash at the Thailand-Cambodia border. Photo: Agence Kampuchea Press/Handout via REUTERS
Thailand's military has closed border crossings into Cambodia to almost all travellers, including tourists and traders, citing security concerns as tensions between the two Southeast Asian neighbours remain escalated over a simmering border dispute.
The deterioration in ties was sparked by brief armed clashes in a border area that left one Cambodian soldier dead late last month. Both governments have since announced measures designed to punish the other, including Cambodia's recent suspension of all Thai fuel and gas imports.
Thailand will now restrict all vehicles, tourists and traders from crossing at all land border checkpoints in seven provinces bordering Cambodia, the military said in a statement issued late on Monday, citing security concerns.
There are exemptions for humanitarian reasons, such as for those needing medical attention, students and other urgent matters at the discretion of security units at checkpoints, the statement said.
The restrictions "matched the current security situation, particularly in addressing the conflict in areas between Thailand and Cambodia that continue to intensify politically, diplomatically and militarily," the statement said.
The military said the measures would also assist in a crackdown on illegal scam centres in Cambodia flagged by Thai Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra on Monday.
Paetongtarn said Thailand would stop cross-border supplies of essentials, including electricity, to areas where illicit operations were taking place.
The prime minister has been under fire for her handling of the border row, particularly after the leaking of a phone call between her and Hun Sen, Cambodia's former leader, that appeared to show her denigrating a senior Thai military commander.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
a day ago
- RNZ News
Trump wins as Supreme Court curbs judges, but may yet lose on birthright citizenship
By Andrew Chung , Reuters The US Supreme Court in Washington, DC. Photo: AFP / KAYLA BARTKOWSKI The US Supreme Court's landmark ruling blunting a potent weapon that federal judges have used to block government policies nationwide during legal challenges was in many ways a victory for President Donald Trump, except perhaps on the very policy he is seeking to enforce. An executive order that the Republican president signed on his first day back in office in January would restrict birthright citizenship - a far-reaching plan that three federal judges, questioning its constitutionality, quickly halted nationwide through so-called "universal" injunctions. But the Supreme Court's ruling, while announcing a dramatic shift in how judges have operated for years deploying such relief, left enough room for the challengers to Trump's directive to try to prevent it from taking effect while litigation over its legality plays out. "I do not expect the president's executive order on birthright citizenship will ever go into effect," said Samuel Bray, a Notre Dame Law School professor and a prominent critic of universal injunctions whose work the court's majority cited extensively in the ruling. Trump's executive order directs federal agencies to refuse to recognise the citizenship of children born in the United States who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also called a "green card" holder. The three judges found that the order likely violates citizenship language in the US Constitution's 14th Amendment. The directive remains blocked while lower courts reconsider the scope of their injunctions, and the Supreme Court said it cannot take effect for 30 days, a window that gives the challengers time to seek further protection from those courts. The court's six conservative justices delivered the majority ruling, granting Trump's request to narrow the injunctions issued by the judges in Maryland, Washington and Massachusetts. Its three liberal members dissented. The ruling by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who Trump appointed to the court in 2020, emphasized the need to hem in the power of judges, warning against an "imperial" judiciary. Judges can provide "complete relief" only to the plaintiffs before them, Barrett wrote. That outcome was a major victory for Trump and his allies, who have repeatedly denounced judges who have impeded his agenda. It could make it easier for the administration to implement his policies, including to accelerate deportations of migrants, restrict transgender rights, curtail diversity and inclusion efforts, and downsize the federal government - many of which have tested the limits of executive power. In the birthright citizenship dispute, the ruling left open the potential for individual plaintiffs to seek relief beyond themselves through class action lawsuits targeting a policy that would upend the long-held understanding that the Constitution confers citizenship on virtually anyone born on US soil. Bray said he expects a surge of new class action cases, resulting in "class-protective" injunctions. "Given that the birthright-citizenship executive order is unconstitutional, I expect courts will grant those preliminary injunctions, and they will be affirmed on appeal," Bray said. Some of the challengers have already taken that path. Plaintiffs in the Maryland case, including expectant mothers and immigrant advocacy groups, asked the presiding judge who had issued a universal injunction to treat the case as a class action to protect all children who would be ineligible for birthright citizenship if the executive order takes effect. "I think in terms of the scope of the relief that we'll ultimately get, there is no difference," said William Powell, one of the lawyers for the Maryland plaintiffs. "We're going to be able to get protection through the class action for everyone in the country whose baby could potentially be covered by the executive order, assuming we succeed." The ruling also sidestepped a key question over whether states that bring lawsuits might need an injunction that applies beyond their borders to address their alleged harms, directing lower courts to answer it first. The challenge to Trump's directive also included 22 states, most of them Democratic-governed, who argued that the financial and administrative burdens they would face required a nationwide block on Trump's order. George Mason University constitutional law expert Ilya Somin said the practical consequences of the ruling will depend on various issues not decided so far by the Supreme Court. "As the majority recognises, states may be entitled to much broader relief than individuals or private groups," Somin said. New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, a Democrat who helped lead the case brought in Massachusetts, disagreed with the ruling but sketched out a path forward on Friday. The ruling, Platkin said in a statement, "recognised that nationwide orders can be appropriate to protect the plaintiffs themselves from harm - which is true, and has always been true, in our case." Platkin committed to "keep challenging President Trump's flagrantly unlawful order, which strips American babies of citizenship for the first time since the Civil War" of 1861-1865. Legal experts said they expect a lot of legal maneuvering in lower courts in the weeks ahead, and the challengers still face an uphill battle. Compared to injunctions in individual cases, class actions are often harder to successfully mount. States, too, still do not know whether they have the requisite legal entitlement to sue. Trump's administration said they do not, but the court left that debate unresolved. Meanwhile, the 30-day clock is ticking. If the challengers are unsuccessful going forward, Trump's order could apply in some parts of the country, but not others. "The ruling is set to go into effect 30 days from now and leaves families in states across the country in deep uncertainty about whether their children will be born as US citizens," said Elora Mukherjee, director of Columbia Law School's immigrants' rights clinic. - Reuters
RNZ News
a day ago
- RNZ News
US Senate Republicans push ahead on Trump's sweeping tax-cut, spending bill
By Richard Cowan , David Morgan and Nicole Johnson , Reuters US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent speaks to reporters following a Senate Republican luncheon, in the US Capitol on 27 June in Washington, DC. Photo: AFP / AL DRAGO US Senate Republicans say they are set to vote on President Donald Trump's sweeping tax-cut and spending bill after agreeing on changes to address concerns about funding for rural hospitals and the deductibility of state taxes. Several Republican senators who had previously expressed hesitancy about voting for the bill told reporters that their concerns had been assuaged and that they were ready to vote to clear a first procedural hurdle in the coming hours. The bill is Trump's top legislative goal. With his fellow Republicans controlling both chambers, Congress has so far not rejected any of Trump's priorities. The 940-page megabill would extend the 2017 tax cuts that were Trump's main legislative achievement during his first term as president, cut other taxes and boost spending on the military and border security. Nonpartisan analysts estimate that a version passed by the House of Representatives last month would add about US$3 trillion (NZ$5 trillion) to the US$36.2 trillion (NZ$60 trillion) US government debt. The Congressional Budget Office has not released a forecast for how much the Senate version - still subject to change - would add to the debt if enacted. The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget public policy organisation on Saturday said its preliminary estimate is that the Senate version would add US$4 trillion (NZ$7 trillion) to the debt over the next decade, including interest costs. "If you thought the House bill borrowed too much - and it did - the Senate manages to make things even worse," Maya MacGuineas, the group's president, said in a statement. The White House said this month that the legislation, titled the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, would reduce the annual deficit by US$1.4 trillion (NZ$2.3 trillion). Democrats opposed the bill, saying its tax-cut elements would disproportionately benefit the wealthy at the expense of social programs relied upon by lower-income Americans. Republican Senators Josh Hawley of Missouri and Susan Collins of Maine, who had opposed concern about tax-code changes that could hurt rural hospitals, told reporters they were ready to move forward. A successful vote would kick off a lengthy process, as Democrats unveil a series of amendments unlikely to pass in a chamber that Republicans control 53-47. "By passing this bill now, we will make our nation more prosperous and secure," Senate Budget Committee Lindsey Graham said in a statement accompanying the bill text. "It is hard to believe that Republican Senators - in the dead of night - made the bill even worse than their initial awful proposal," top Senate Democrat Chuck Schumer wrote on social media. "This bill virtually wipes out all wind and solar. We have to fight it." It is hard to believe that Republican Senators—in the dead of night—made the bill even worse than their initial awful proposal. This bill virtually wipes out all wind and solar. We have to fight it. Republicans from states with large rural populations have opposed a reduction in state tax revenue for Medicaid providers including rural hospitals. The newly released legislation would delay that reduction and would include US$25 billion (NZ$41 billion) to support rural Medicaid providers from 2028 to 2032. "If you want to be a working-class party, you've got to get and deliver for working-class people," Hawley told reporters. "You cannot take away healthcare for working people." The legislation would raise the cap on federal deductions for state and local taxes to US$40,000 (NZ$60,000) with an annual 1 percent inflation adjustment through 2029, after which it would fall back to the current US$10,000 (NZ$16,500). The bill would also phase the cap down for those earning more than US$500,000 (NZ$825,000) a year. That is a major concern of House Republicans from coastal states including New York, New Jersey and California, who play an important role in keeping the party's narrow House majority. Republicans are using a legislative maneuver to bypass the Senate's 60-vote threshold to advance most legislation in the 100-member chamber. The narrow majorities for Republicans in the Senate and House mean they can afford no more than three no votes from the party in either chamber to advance a bill that Democrats are united in opposing. Democrats will focus their firepower with amendments aimed at reversing Republican spending cuts to programs that provide government-backed healthcare to the elderly, poor and disabled, as well as food aid to low-income families. The bill also would raise the Treasury Department's debt ceiling by trillions of dollars to stave off a potentially disastrous default on the nation's debt in the coming months. If the Senate manages to pass the bill by early next week, the House would be poised to quickly apply the final stamp of approval, sending it to Trump for signing into law. - Reuters
RNZ News
2 days ago
- RNZ News
Trump says he would consider bombing Iran again, drops plan to lift sanctions
By Trevor Hunnicutt and Steve Holland , Reuters US President Donald Trump Photo: SAUL LOEB / AFP US President Donald Trump sharply criticised Iran's Supreme Leader, Ali Khamanei, dropped plans to lift sanctions on Iran, and said he would consider bombing Iran again if Tehran is enriching uranium to worrisome levels. Trump reacted sternly to Khamanei's first remarks after a 12-day conflict with Israel that ended when the United States launched bombing raids last weekend against Iranian nuclear sites. Khamanei said Iran "slapped America in the face" by launching an attack against a major US base in Qatar following the US bombing raids. Khamanei also said Iran would never surrender. Trump said he had spared Khamanei's life. US officials told Reuters on 15 June that Trump had vetoed an Israeli plan to kill the supreme leader. "His Country was decimated, his three evil Nuclear Sites were OBLITERATED, and I knew EXACTLY where he was sheltered, and would not let Israel, or the U.S. Armed Forces, by far the Greatest and Most Powerful in the World, terminate his life," Trump said in a social media post. "I SAVED HIM FROM A VERY UGLY AND IGNOMINIOUS DEATH," he said. Iran said a potential nuclear deal was conditional on the US ending its "disrespectful tone" toward the Supreme Leader. "If President Trump is genuine about wanting a deal, he should put aside the disrespectful and unacceptable tone towards Iran's Supreme Leader, Grand Ayatollah Khamenei, and stop hurting his millions of heartfelt followers," Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said in a post on X. Trump also said that in recent days he had been working on the possible removal of sanctions on Iran to give it a chance for a speedy recovery. He said he had now abandoned that effort. "I get hit with a statement of anger, hatred, and disgust, and immediately dropped all work on sanction relief, and more," he said. Trump said at a White House news conference that he did not rule out attacking Iran again, when asked about the possibility of new bombing of Iranian nuclear sites if deemed necessary at some point. "Sure, without question, absolutely," he said. Trump said he would like inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency - the UN nuclear watchdog - or another respected source to be able to inspect Iran's nuclear sites after they were bombed last weekend. Trump has rejected any suggestion that damage to the sites was not as profound as he has said. The IAEA chief, Rafael Grossi, said that ensuring the resumption of IAEA inspections was his top priority as none had taken place since Israel began bombing on 13 June. However, Iran's parliament approved moves to suspend such inspections. Araqchi indicated that Tehran may reject any request by the head of the agency for visits to Iranian nuclear sites. Trump said Iran still wants to meet about the way forward. The White House said that no meeting between the US and an Iranian delegation has been scheduled thus far. - Reuters
