Thailand seeks a neutral venue for border talks with Cambodia; Malaysia seems to be the best venue
BANGKOK (Bloomberg): Thailand has requested Cambodia to move a bilateral meeting of senior security officials next week - considered crucial to de-escalating border tensions following deadly clashes - from Phnom Penh to a neutral location.
Bangkok has proposed shifting the Aug 4 General Border Committee meeting, agreed by the leaders of the two countries, to a city in Malaysia.
The request was made by Thailand's Acting Defense Minister Nattaphon Narkphanit, in a letter dated July 31, to his Cambodian counterpart, citing "the sensitive nature of the situation.'
Malaysia, which hosted ceasefire talks between the two nations' leaders earlier this week, is ready to host the meeting as the current chair of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, Nattaphon said.
Cambodia's Defense Ministry spokesperson Maly Socheata didn't immediately respond to a request for comments.
Despite agreeing to an unconditional ceasefire on Sunday, the two countries have continued to exchange accusations of unprovoked aggression.
The five-day conflict resulted in over 40 deaths and displaced around 300,000 people along their roughly 800-kilometer (500-mile) border.
The truce was brokered by Malaysian Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, acting as Asean chair, and followed pressure from US President Donald Trump.
"This upcoming session is of an extraordinary nature' as it will provide the two sides an opportunity to jointly explore a way forward in de-escalating tensions and resolving the border security issues, Nattaphon said. He also asked that the meeting be extended to Aug. 7 to provide more time for discussions due to "the number and gravity of issues to be addressed.'
The General Border Committee is one of several bilateral mechanisms established by Thailand and Cambodia to address border matters. The countries take turns hosting the meetings, and it is currently Cambodia's turn to do so.
The Thai army has established an interim team of observers, including military attachés from Asean member states, to monitor the ceasefire, according to a statement.
The group also discussed the possible establishment of a broader Asean monitoring mechanism, which will be addressed at the Thai-Cambodia meeting next week, the army said. -- ©2025 Bloomberg L.P.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Straits Times
12 minutes ago
- New Straits Times
MAG's Boeing buy a strategic, self-funded move
KUALA LUMPUR: Malaysia Aviation Group's (MAG) purchase of Boeing aircraft is not a waste of taxpayers' money as alleged by certain quarters but rather a strategic business decision that was planned in advance and will be fully financed using the company's funds, said Tengku Datuk Seri Zafrul Abdul Aziz. The Investment, Trade and Industry Minister said the purchase decision had been announced as early as March this year, prior to United States (US) President Donald Trump's announcement of any new import tariff on goods. "So what does this purchase have to do with tariff negotiations? "The US imposed the tariffs partly due to the trade deficit. This means we sold more goods to the US than we bought from the country, so the US sought to reduce this deficit by imposing high tariffs of 25 per cent," he said in a post on his official X social media account yesterday. Hence, Tengku Zafrul said, Malaysia took the opportunity by listing all big-ticket purchases planned by Malaysian companies from the US, including the Boeing aircraft order. "We are not making the purchase just to reduce tariffs," he stressed. According to him, this demonstrated to the US that Malaysia is also a major buyer of its products, thus finally convincing the US to lower import tariffs on Malaysian goods from 25 per cent to 19 per cent. "This smart strategy is the result of careful negotiations, ensuring that the interests of both companies and the country are protected," he added. In March this year, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim announced that MAG had placed a firm order for 30 Boeing 737 aircraft, scheduled for delivery by 2030. - BERNAMA
Borneo Post
42 minutes ago
- Borneo Post
A political move that backfired
The Parliament of Malaysia – the only place where an incumbent Prime Minister may legally be voted out of office. — Bernama photo MANY Malaysian politicians are being innovative for the wrong reason. In Peninsular Malaysia, for instance, within the past 10 years, they have made political moves in order to acquire power and authority fast by devising stratagems such as 'tebuk atap' (by punching a hole in the roof) or 'masuk pintu belakang' (back-door entry). To make their schemes look like being constitutional, they used the Statutory Declaration to influence the legislators. Legislators were made to swear on a piece of paper to support the appointment of the candidate for premiership, cocksure that the King would agree to their proposal without question. Another device On July 26 this year, a new device for toppling an elected government was tried out. Opposition politicians used a gathering of thousands of party supporters at one spot in Kuala Lumpur and regarded the size of the crowd, real or bloated manifolds, as the sole criterion with which to convince the public at large and, in particular the supporters of Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, should step down as Prime Minister without delay. However, one glaring flaw of this version of a coup d'état was that the organisers were not able to name a member of Parliament as the PM-designate during the rally, or soon after. It did not look like they had agreed beforehand that one MP from their group would be their nominee for the post. It has been a week now since the 'Turun Anwar' rally was held. At the time of writing this article, there has been no inkling that the incumbent PM has planned to call a press conference during which he would announce his resignation. Then one is tempted to wonder if the rally of 500,000 participants (some estimates say only 18,000 at most), had really achieved what its organisers had planned. To me, it begins to look like that this stratagem of mob rule has been counter-productive or ineffective in terms of forcing the incumbent Prime Minister to throw in the towels. Anwar's opponents have made him a martyr! Political crisis? Seeing in the social media and hearing from friends in Kuala Lumpur about the political fights for hegemony among the Malay politicians, many people in Sarawak I talked to are concerned about the eruption of a political crisis, and consequentially, of the possible side-effects of the political rifts in the peninsula. Those Sarawakians supporting the Unity Government and acknowledging the leadership of PM Anwar as the Chief Executive of the Unity Government, have a stake in that government. Resignation of the Prime Minister may be followed by the resignations of the other members of his Cabinet. The prospects of a full-blown political crisis are real; such crisis at this juncture will do more harm than good to the Federation. The Sarawakians in the Cabinet, in the Senate and in Parliament (as ordinary back–benchers) are from a coalition of parties, which had enabled the formation of the Unity Government a couple of years ago. I don't think they would undo what they had helped build. Instead, I think they would like to continue serving under it until the end of its term. There is law governing the elections of legislators and the appointment of the Prime Minister. Why ignore all these? Should the Federal Government collapse consequent upon the loss of the majority of seats in Parliament, the parliamentarians from the coalition parties, including Gabungan Parti Sarawak (GPS) would be in a real dilemma. Either they join the government formed by the Opposition MPs, or they turn themselves into Opposition. That would be awkward for Sarawakians. Either way, a political vacuum will be created, and that is a perfect recipe for a full-scale political problem, which we can do without. At the risk of repeating myself, I say that any political group aiming to rule this country via the public rallies to unseat the incumbent head of the government and using any scheme other than the process of elections carried out according to the relevant law, would deserve to be censored by all peace-loving people in this country. These Opposition politicians would have deserved some respectability had they done the decent thing: proposing the motion of 'No Confidence' in Anwar's leadership as the Prime Minister at the right venue: the Parliament. There, they can 'tear' him to pieces and pile heaps of the wrongdoings that the PM has allegedly done – or imagined to have done. Instead, they resorted to mass psychology now backfiring. The result: they have made Anwar a martyr! Watching all this from Borneo, it seems to me that the organisers of that rally in Kuala Lumpur did not respect the feelings of the other Malaysians, many in Peninsular Malaysia, and many more in the Borneo states. How or what they think, or how they feel about the possibility of a serious political crisis, does not seem to matter to the rally organisers. To me, such attitude is un-Malaysian! One thing that the July 26 rally organisers should have anticipated was that the supporters of the Prime Minister could also organise rallies of their own, saying: 'What they can do, we can do better!' They have the means with which to reach their supporters and the public for support by exerting influence on the main official mass media and their cyber-troopers are ready to do battle. In terms of psychological warfare, during the Communist insurgency in Malaya, the governing authorities were always in a better position than that of the guerrillas. Our rally organisers ought to learn from history. Smart, the Anwar supporters have not resorted to holding rallies of their own. No need for these. The opponents of your Boss have made him a martyr! Do they not realise that the other Malaysians in the Boneo states are watching the intense politicking there with a growing concern? I note that this political rivalry in the early days of Malaysia and now, after so many years in Malaysia, the rivalry is still as intense as it was 60 years ago. What's happening, and why? The intense competition for political hegemony in Peninsular Malaysia does not bode well for the Malaysians in the Borneo states. Please stop me from elaborating. Before I finish this, I saw something disgusting on social media: the scene of an image that resembled Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, being flogged in public! I think that any group of politicians aspiring to rule the Federation in the future and using this method of punishment, can forget about looking at Sarawak for help to form a federal government. To describe the act as being 'inhuman' is almost generous! * The opinions expressed in this article are the columnist's own and do not reflect the view of the newspaper. malaysia politics Sarawak tebuk atap
The Star
7 hours ago
- The Star
Asean's parallel diplomacy on Myanmar: Creativity sans coordination
AT the 58th Asean Foreign Ministers' Meeting on July 9, the regional bloc reiterated its commitment to the Five-Point Consensus (5PC) as the central political reference for addressing the deepening crisis in Myanmar, which was also stated in the 2025 Asean Leaders' Statement on a Ceasefire in Myanmar Extended and Expanded. Yet more than four years since the military coup, with escalating violence, deepening displacement and widespread human rights violations, one must ask: How effective has this approach truly been? What has become increasingly clear is the growing disconnect between Asean's rhetoric and its actions. Far from being a roadmap to peace, the 5PC has become a diplomatic placeholder, invoked ritually in communiqués yet divorced from realities on the ground. What has emerged in its place is a fragmented and contradictory set of responses has emerged, exposing Asean to what is described as the trap of "parallel diplomacy". This trap reveals both institutional stagnation and growing division among Asean member states. Rather than forging a cohesive and principled regional strategy, Asean has allowed individual member states to pursue uncoordinated and improvised national initiatives. These fragmented actions, often detached from Asean's formal mechanisms, have bred confusion, diluted collective pressure on the junta and eroded public confidence in the bloc's credibility. Parallel diplomacy, by nature, is not inherently flawed. Informal channels, Track 1.5 dialogues and backchannel negotiations can play crucial roles in complex conflict contexts. However, when these efforts unfold without coordination or a shared strategic vision, they risk undermining peace building efforts. Fragmented diplomacy, in such a case, becomes a symptom of disunity, not a strategy for flexibility. Thailand's approach to the Myanmar crisis exemplifies the consequences of this incoherence. Often operating outside Asean frameworks, Thailand has spearheaded what has come to be known as the 'Bangkok Process', a series of direct engagements with Myanmar's military regime. This began with then-foreign minister Don Pramudwinai's visit to Naypyidaw in 2021 and continued with the appointment of a Thai special envoy to Myanmar. Several informal consultations followed, including meetings involving the junta and its closest allies. In December 2022, Thailand hosted a closed-door meeting that included junta representatives and the foreign ministers of Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam. Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and Singapore boycotted the meeting, citing their commitment to the 5PC and objected to the junta's inclusion. Similar meetings followed in June 2023 and December 2024, often framed around humanitarian engagement. The latter was attended by ministers from Laos, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand and Singapore, with the rest sending lower-level delegates. These moves signalled improvisation over unity, diplomacy over strategy. Indonesia as Asean chair in 2023, meanwhile, held consultations with over 145 stakeholders, including resistance groups, by September that year. These engagements evolved into an informal Joint Coordination Body known as the "Jakarta Club", which remains active today. The January 2025 Asean Foreign Ministers' Retreat further highlighted the region's growing fragmentation over Myanmar. The Philippines proposed a new political framework, while Vietnam called for the inclusion of ethnic armed organisations in future dialogue. These diverging positions do not signal healthy pluralism, they reflect deepening strategic incoherence within Asean. In April, Malaysia initiated direct engagement with the National Unity Government Myanmar's civilian-led opposition. However, diplomatic courtesies and technical cooperation with the junta continue in parallel, lending de facto legitimacy to the military regime while reducing pro-democracy actors to symbolic participants. The emergence of multiple informal mechanisms, such as Indonesia's Jakarta Club, Thailand's Bangkok Process and Malaysia's dual-track diplomacy, reflects both innovation and disarray in Asean's approach. These ad-hoc efforts, in the absence of a unified strategy, illustrate Asean's drift: engaging both the junta and the opposition without a coherent political roadmap risks perpetuating stalemate rather than resolving the crisis. Part of this incoherence stems from Asean's institutional structure. The rotating nature of the Special Envoy, changing with each Asean Chair, undermines continuity and long-term strategy. Compounding this, minister-level envoy is no longer on the table. While some of these adjustments are framed as strategic, they also reflect the bloc's limited political will and uneven commitment to addressing the crisis. Another structural flaw lies in Asean's lack of a clear, enforceable mechanism to address unconstitutional changes of government. This institutional gap not only enables impunity but makes the bloc complicit in democratic backsliding. Without the courage to confront member states that violate core democratic norms, the bloc merely adds strain to its already fragile regionalism project. Another disunity has been revealed in member states' responses to Myanmar's planned 2025 elections, to be held later this year. Malaysia and Singapore have rightly questioned the vote's legitimacy, while Thailand remains neutral and Cambodia has even offered to send observers. These divergent positions highlight Asean's chronic inability to speak with one voice on fundamental democratic principles, undermining its credibility and emboldening authoritarian actors within and beyond Myanmar. Asean stands at a critical juncture shaped by crisis, centrality and conscience. This photo taken on December 10, 2023 shows members of the Mandalay People's Defense Forces (MDY-PDF) heading to the frontline amid clashes with the Myanmar military in northern Shan State. Myanmar's junta ended the country's state of emergency on July 31, 2025, ramping up preparations for a December election being boycotted by opposition groups and criticised by international monitors. — AFP The humanitarian catastrophe in Myanmar, marked by mass killings, displacement and aid blockades, has spilled across borders, fuelling instability and transnational crime. Some advocate for using all diplomatic tools, including parallel tracks, but innovation without principled leadership and a unified strategy risks becoming a smokescreen for inaction rather than a path to peace. The true test of Asean's centrality is no longer its ability to speak in uniformity, but to harmonise many voices without losing the plot. Centrality must mean more than procedural prominence, it must signal strategic coherence and moral leadership. The Myanmar crisis has revealed troubling signs of institutional drift, and unless corrected, Asean's foundational claims to unity and purpose will ring increasingly empty. Above all, Asean must summon moral clarity. Leading with conscience means naming the perpetrators, supporting the victims and rejecting impunity masquerading as diplomacy. — The Jakarta Post/ANN Yuyun Wahyuningrum is executive director of Asean Parliamentarians for Human Rights (APHR).
