Thailand, Cambodia agree in principle to ceasefire amid deadly conflict
A woman who fled her home near the border between Cambodia and Thailand, sits on a hammock at a pagoda in Oddar Meanchey province. Photo / Tang Chhin Sothy, AFP
Hours earlier, clashes broke out in the countries' coastal regions where they meet on the Gulf of Thailand, around 250km southwest of the main front lines, thumping with blasts on Saturday afternoon.
'It feels like I'm escaping a war zone,' 76-year-old Samlee Sornchai told AFP at a temple shelter for evacuees in the Thai town of Kanthararom, after abandoning his farm near the embattled frontier.
A long-running border dispute erupted into combat this week with jets, tanks and ground troops.
Tensions initially flared over long-contested ancient temple sites before fighting spread along the rural border region, marked by a ridge of hills surrounded by wild jungle and agricultural land where locals farm rubber and rice.
'Tragic and unnecessary'
While each side has expressed openness to a truce, they have accused one another of undermining armistice efforts.
Cambodia's defence ministry said 13 people have been confirmed killed in the fighting since Thursday, including eight civilians and five soldiers, with 71 people wounded.
A pagoda damaged by Thai artillery is pictured in Oddar Meanchey province. Photo / AFP
Thai authorities say 13 civilians and seven soldiers have died on their side, taking the toll across both nations higher than it was in the last major round of fighting between 2008 and 2011.
Both sides reported a coastline clash early Saturday, with Cambodia accusing Thai forces of firing 'five heavy artillery shells' into Pursat province, bordering Thailand's Trat province.
The conflict has forced more than 138,000 people to be evacuated from Thailand's border regions, and more than 35,000 driven from their homes in Cambodia.
After an urgent United Nations Security Council meeting on Friday in New York, Cambodia's UN ambassador Chhea Keo said his country wanted 'an immediate ceasefire' and a peaceful solution of the dispute.
Cambodian soldiers stand on a military truck with an anti-aircraft gun in Oddar Meanchey province. Photo / Tang Chhin Sothy, AFP
UN chief Antonio Guterres remained deeply concerned about the armed clashes and urged both sides Saturday to 'immediately agree to a ceasefire' and hold talks to find a lasting solution.
'The Secretary-General condemns the tragic and unnecessary loss of lives, injuries to civilians and the damage to homes and infrastructure on both sides,' his deputy spokesman Farhan Haq said in a statement.
Scramble for dialogue
Both sides have blamed the other for firing first.
Additionally, Cambodia has accused Thai forces of using cluster munitions, while Thailand accused Cambodia of targeting civilian infrastructure, including a hospital hit by shells.
The fighting marks a dramatic escalation in a long-running dispute between the neighbours – both popular destinations for millions of foreign tourists – over their shared 800km border where dozens of kilometres are contested.
A UN court ruling in 2013 settled the matter for more than a decade, but the current crisis erupted in May when a Cambodian soldier was killed in a border clash.
Relations soured dramatically when Cambodia's influential ex-leader Hun Sen last month released a recording of a call with Thailand's then-Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra focused on the row.
The leak triggered a political crisis in Thailand as Paetongtarn was accused of not standing up for Thailand enough, and of criticising her own army.
She was suspended from office by a court order.
– Agence France-Presse
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
4 hours ago
- Scoop
Diplomatic Merchandise: Exploiting The Issue Of Palestinian Recognition
They have been the playthings of powers for decades, and there is no promise that this will end soon. Empires and powers seem to come and go, yet the plight of the Palestinians remains more horrific than ever. Now, in the next instalment of the grand morality game, France, the United Kingdom and Canada promise to recognise Palestinian statehood at the September meeting of the 80th session of the United Nations General Assembly. From the perspective of soothing the conscience, this is a mighty thing – for those in Paris, London and Ottawa. It does not save a single life on the ground in Gaza or the West Bank, provide a single meal for a starving family, or rebuild a single destroyed school. But President Emmanuel Macron, and Prime Ministers Sir Keir Starmer and Mark Carney can all commune as a triumvirate of principled statesmen. Macron, the first of the three, had been making signals on the issue earlier in the year. The French leader had hoped that a UN conference sponsored by France and Saudi Arabia would be the venue for joint recognition, but it came to naught with the resumption of hostilities in Gaza and Israel's attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities. In turning to the G7 nations, he hoped to amplify the urgency of recognition. In doing so, the onus was also on the Palestinian Authority to make certain concessions to add momentum. A letter from PA President Mahmoud Abbas sent to Macron duly came, condemning the attacks of October 7, 2023 by Hamas, demanding the immediate release of all hostages and pledged the holding of elections and reforms to governance. Hamas – not that Abbas had any claims on this point – would also 'no longer rule Gaza' and would have to surrender 'weapons and military capabilities to the Palestinian Security Forces, which will oversee their removal outside the occupied Palestinian territory, with Arab and international support'. On July 24, Macron confirmed in a letter to Abbas conveyed via France's Consul General in Jerusalem that recognition of a Palestinian state would follow in September 'in light of the historic commitments that were made' and the threatened two-state solution. On July 28, in his opening speech to a plenary session of the High-Level International Conference on the Peaceful Settlement on the Question of Palestine and the Implementation of the Two-State Solution, France's Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs, Jean-Nöel Barrot stated the 'prospect of two States, whose rights are recognised and respected, is in mortal danger.' But assurances and momentum had been achieved, with Barrot acknowledging the condemnation by the Arab League of the Hamas attack and the insistence by its members on the release of the remaining hostages, the disarming of the group and conclusion of its rule in the Strip. Of the G7, Starmer was the next to be swayed, but with a notable proviso: 'the UK will recognise the state of Palestine by the United Nations General Assembly in September unless the Israeli government takes substantive steps to end the appalling situation in Gaza, agree to a ceasefire and commit to a long-term sustainable peace, reviving the prospect of a Two-State Solution.' To this could be added the need for Hamas to release the hostages, accept a ceasefire, disarm and 'play no part in the government of Gaza.' In shabby fashion, room is left to withdraw the offer for recognising Palestinian statehood. 'We will make an assessment in September on how far the parties have met these steps.' Carney, the latest addition, claimed on July 30 that the two-state solution growing from a negotiated settlement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority had been eroded as a prospect by four factors: the threat of Hamas to Israel; accelerated building across the West Bank and East Jerusalem, including numerous instances of Israeli settler violence; the E1 Settlement Plan and the July vote by the Knesset calling for the annexation of the West Bank; and the ongoing failure by the Israeli government to arrest 'the rapidly deteriorating humanitarian disaster in Gaza, with impeded access to food and other essential humanitarian supplies.' The Canadian PM, in reasons almost identical to Macron, had also been swayed by 'the Palestinian Authority's commitment to much-needed reforms' in governance, including the promise to hold elections in 2026 that will exclude Hamas, undertaking anti-corruption measures and the creation of a demilitarised Palestinian state. A resounding theme comes through in the latest flurry of statements: Palestinians continue to be lectured and harangued under the guise of humanitarian understanding, told who can represent them or not (a reformed Palestinian Authority promisingly good, Hamas decidedly bad), and whether they can have any semblance of a military force. 'Recognising a State of Palestine today,' states Barrot, 'means standing with the Palestinians who have chosen non-violence, who have renounced terrorism, and are prepared to recognise Israel.' Standing, it would seem, with a certain type of idealised Palestinian. The Palestinians have become diplomatic merchandise or bits of currency, to be gambled with in the casino of power politics. Starmer is the worst exponent of this, hoping for such returns as Israel's halt to the slaughter and famine in Gaza and the release of the hostages by Hamas and its disarmament. But the idea of Palestinian recognition remains, at this stage, a moot point. At the end of any diplomatic tunnel on this lies certain requirements that would have to be met, not least the criteria of the Montevideo Convention from 1933. Despite gathering some dust over time, it outlines the relevant requirements for statehood: any recognised state in international law must have a permanent population, a defined territory, a discernible government and the capacity to enter into relations with other states. In the UK, some 43 cross-party peers have sent a letter of warning to Starmer arguing against recognising a Palestinian state, citing such familiar, legal grumbles. There was, for instance, 'no certainty over the borders of Palestine' nor 'a functioning single government, Fatah and Hamas being enemies'. Neither could enter into relations with foreign states, with one entity having not held elections for decades, and the other being a 'terrorist organisation'. Despite the UK not signing the Montevideo Convention, recognising Palestine 'would be contrary to the principles of governing recognition of states in international law,' the convention having become part of international customary law. On the bloodied ground, where legal abstractions dissolve into fleshy realities, Israel is doing its level best to make sure that there will be nothing left of a Palestinian state to recognise. For Israel, the case is not one of if or when, but never. The machinery of slaughter, deprivation and dislocation is now so advanced it risks smothering the very idea of a viable Palestinian entity. Israeli policy till October 2023 was engineered to stifle and restrain any credible progress towards a Palestinian state, crowned by feeding the acrimonious divisions between Hamas and Fatah. After October 7 that year, the sharpened focus became one of expulsion, subjugation, or plain elimination of the general populace. Palestinian sovereignty remains, to date, incipient, a bare semblance of a political self. This egregious state of affairs continues to be supported, even by those wishing to recognise Palestine. In some ways, those sorts are arguably the worst.
1News
9 hours ago
- 1News
Why not enough food is reaching Gaza even after blockade lifted
International outcry over images of emaciated children and increasing reports of hunger-related deaths have pressured Israel to let more aid into the Gaza Strip. This week, Israel paused fighting in parts of Gaza and airdropped food. But aid groups and Palestinians say the changes have only been incremental and are not enough to reverse what food experts say is a "worst-case scenario of famine" unfolding in the war-ravaged territory. The new measures have brought an uptick in the number of aid trucks entering Gaza. But almost none of it reaches UN warehouses for distribution. Instead, nearly all the trucks are stripped of their cargo by crowds that overwhelm them on the roads as they drive from the borders. The crowds are a mix of Palestinians desperate for food and gangs armed with knives, axes or pistols who loot the goods to then hoard or sell. Many have also been killed trying to grab the aid. Witnesses say Israeli troops often open fire on crowds around the aid trucks, and hospitals have reported hundreds killed or wounded. The Israeli military says it has only fired warning shots to control crowds or at people who approach its forces. The alternative food distribution system run by the Israeli-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation has also been marred by violence. ADVERTISEMENT International airdrops of aid have resumed. But aid groups say airdrops deliver only a fraction of what trucks can supply. Also, many parcels have landed in now-inaccessible areas that Palestinians have been told to evacuate, while others have plunged into the Mediterranean Sea, forcing people to swim out to retrieve drenched bags of flour. Here's a look at why the aid isn't being distributed: The morning's headlines in 90 seconds, including toddler found in suitcase on bus, Russian volcano erupts, and Liam Lawson pips former world champion. (Source: 1News) A lack of trust The UN says that longstanding restrictions on the entry of aid have created an unpredictable environment, and that while a pause in fighting might allow more aid in, Palestinians are not confident aid will reach them. "This has resulted in many of our convoys offloaded directly by starving, desperate people as they continue to face deep levels of hunger and are struggling to feed their families," said Olga Cherevko, a spokesperson for the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, or OCHA. "The only way to reach a level of confidence is by having a sustained flow of aid over a period of time," she said. ADVERTISEMENT Israel blocked food entirely from entering Gaza for two and a half months starting in March. Since it eased the blockade in late May, it allowed in a trickle of aid trucks for the UN, about 70 a day on average, according to official Israeli figures. That is far below the 500-600 trucks a day that UN agencies say are needed — the amount that entered during a six-week ceasefire earlier this year. Palestinians rush to collect humanitarian aid airdropped in central Gaza Strip. (Source: Associated Press) Much of the aid is stacked up just inside the border in Gaza because UN trucks could not pick it up. The UN says that was because of Israeli military restrictions on its movements and because of the lawlessness in Gaza. Israel has argued that it is allowing sufficient quantities of goods into Gaza and tried to shift the blame to the UN "More consistent collection and distribution by UN agencies and international organisations = more aid reaching those who need it most in Gaza," the Israeli military agency in charge of aid coordination, COGAT, said in a statement this week. With the new measures this week, COGAT, says 220-270 truckloads a day were allowed into Gaza on Tuesday and Wednesday, and that the UN was able to pick up more trucks, reducing some of the backlog at the border. Aid mission still face 'constraints' Cherevko said there have been "minor improvements" in approvals by the Israeli military for its movements and some "reduced waiting times" for trucks along the road. ADVERTISEMENT But she said the aid missions are "still facing constraints." Delays of military approval still mean trucks remain idle for long periods, and the military still restricts the routes that the trucks can take onto a single road, which makes it easy for people to know where the trucks are going, UN officials say. Antoine Renard, who directs the World Food Program's operations in Gaza and the occupied West Bank, said Wednesday that it took nearly 12 hours to bring in 52 trucks on a 10km route. "While we're doing everything that we can to actually respond to the current wave of starvation in Gaza, the conditions that we have are not sufficient to actually make sure that we can break that wave," he said. Aid workers say the changes Israel has made in recent days are largely cosmetic. "These are theatrics, token gestures dressed up as progress," said Bushra Khalidi, Oxfam's policy lead for Israel and the Palestinian territories. "Of course, a handful of trucks, a few hours of tactical pauses and raining energy bars from the sky is not going to fix irreversible harm done to an entire generation of children that have been starved and malnourished for months now," she said. A Palestinian youth carries a sack of aid that landed in the Mediterranean Sea after being airdropped over central Gaza. (Source: Associated Press) Breakdown of law and order ADVERTISEMENT As desperation mounts, Palestinians are risking their lives to get food, and violence is increasing, say aid workers. Muhammad Shehada, a political analyst from Gaza who is a visiting fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, said aid retrieval has turned into the survival of the fittest. "It's a Darwin dystopia, the strongest survive," he said. A truck driver said Wednesday that he has driven food supplies four times from the Zikim crossing on Gaza's northern border. Every time, he said, crowds a kilometre long surrounded his truck and took everything on it after he passed the checkpoint at the edge of the Israeli military-controlled border zones. He said some were desperate people, while others were armed. He said that on Tuesday, for the first time, some in the crowd threatened him with knives or small arms. He spoke on condition of anonymity, fearing for his safety. Ali al-Derbashi, another truck driver, said that during one trip in July armed men shot the tires, stole everything, including the diesel and batteries and beat him. "If people weren't starving, they wouldn't resort to this," he said. Israel has said it has offered the UN armed escorts. The UN has refused, saying it can't be seen to be working with a party to the conflict – and pointing to the reported shootings when Israeli troops are present. Uncertainty and humiliation ADVERTISEMENT Israel hasn't given a timeline for how long the measures it implemented this week will continue, heightening uncertainty and urgency among Palestinians to seize the aid before it ends. Palestinians say the way it's being distributed, including being dropped from the sky, is inhumane. "This approach is inappropriate for Palestinians, we are humiliated," said Rida, a displaced woman. Momen Abu Etayya said he almost drowned because his son begged him to get aid that fell into the sea during an aid drop. "I threw myself in the ocean to death just to bring him something," he said. "I was only able to bring him three biscuit packets".
RNZ News
16 hours ago
- RNZ News
The Trump administration takes a very Orwellian turn
By Aaron Blake , CNN US President Donald Trump. Photo: AFP Analysis - Back in March, US President Donald Trump signed an executive order targeted at the Smithsonian Institution that began as follows: "Over the past decade, Americans have witnessed a concerted and widespread effort to rewrite our Nation's history, replacing objective facts with a distorted narrative driven by ideology rather than truth." Despite the high-minded rhetoric, many worried the order was instead a thinly veiled effort to rewrite history more to Trump's liking. The order, for example, cited a desire to remove "improper ideology" - an ominous phrase, if there ever was one - from properties like the Smithsonian. Those concerns were certainly bolstered this week. We learned that some historical information that recently vanished from the Smithsonian just so happens to have been objective history that Trump really dislikes: a reference to his two impeachments. The Smithsonian said that a board containing the information was removed from the National Museum of American History last month after a review of the museum's "legacy content." The board had been placed in front of an existing impeachment exhibit in September 2021. Just to drive this home: The exhibit itself is about "Limits of Presidential Power." And suddenly examples of the biggest efforts by Congress to limit Trump's were gone. It wasn't immediately clear that the board was removed pursuant to Trump's executive order. The Washington Post, which broke the news, reported that a source said the content review came after pressure from the White House to remove an art museum director. In other words, we don't know all the details of precisely how this went down - including whether the removal was specifically requested, or whether museum officials decided it might be a good way to placate Trump amid pressure. The Smithsonian said in a statement that it was "not asked by any administration" or government official to remove content and that an updated version of the exhibit will ultimately mention all impeachment efforts, including Trump's. But it's all pretty Orwellian. And it's not the only example. Trump has always been rather blatant about his efforts to rewrite history with self-serving falsehoods and rather shameless in applying pressure on the people who would serve as impartial referees of the current narrative. But this week has taken things to another level. Last week, Trump fired the commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics . This came just hours after that agency delivered Trump some very bad news: the worst non-Covid three-month jobs numbers since 2010. Some Trump allies have attempted to put a good face on this, arguing that Dr Erika McEntarfer's removal was warranted because large revisions in the job numbers betrayed shoddy work. But as he did with the firing of then-FBI Director James Comey eight years ago, Trump quickly undermined all that. He told Newsmax that "we fired her because we didn't believe the numbers today." To the extent Trump did lay out an actual evidence-based case for firing McEntarfer, that evidence was conspiratorial and wrong, as CNN's Daniel Dale documented Friday. And even some Republican senators acknowledged this might be precisely as draconian and self-serving as it looked. Senator Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, for one, called it "kind of impetuous" to fire the BLS head before finding out whether the new numbers were actually wrong. "It's not the statistician's fault if the numbers are accurate and that they're not what the president had hoped for," said Lummis, who is not often a Trump critic. Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina added that if Trump "just did it because they didn't like the numbers, they ought to grow up." Senators Rand Paul of Kentucky and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska both worried that Trump's move would make it so people can't trust the data the administration is putting out. And that's the real problem here. It's not so much that Trump appears to be firing someone as retaliation; it's the message it sends to everyone else in a similar position. The message is that you might want that data and those conclusions to be to Trump's liking, or else. It's a recipe for getting plenty of unreliable data and conclusions. And even to the extent that information is solid, it will seed suspicions about the books having been cooked - both among regular Americans and, crucially, among those making key decisions that impact the economy. What happens if the next jobs report is great? Will the markets believe it? We've certainly seen plenty of rather blunt Trump efforts to control such narratives and rewrite history before. A sampling: All of it reinforces the idea that Trump is trying to consolidate power by pursuing rather heavy-handed and blatant tactics. But if there's a week that really drove home how blunt these efforts can be, it might be this one. - CNN
