logo
Thailand-Cambodia clash is more than a border fight—it's a new front in Cold War 2.0

Thailand-Cambodia clash is more than a border fight—it's a new front in Cold War 2.0

The Print3 days ago
For observers in South Asia, the crisis strikes a familiar chord. Much like the subcontinent's own post-colonial challenges, this conflict is deeply rooted in contested borders callously drawn by colonial powers. In South Asia, the legacy lies with the British; in Southeast Asia, it's the French.
Now in its second day, the hostilities continue and a ceasefire remains elusive, if not impossible. The implications for regional stability and the broader US-China strategic rivalry—often dubbed 'Cold War 2.0'—are already profound.
The sudden military escalation between two ASEAN members, Thailand and Cambodia, has jolted the Indo-Pacific, a region that's already on edge amid the Great Power contestation between the United States and China.
The timing couldn't be more telling. Global military budgets are rising amid geopolitical strains, and Southeast Asia is no exception. Even as ASEAN countries pursue deeper economic integration—modelling aspects of the European Union—defence spending has surged across the bloc. This, even though ASEAN is far from unified in its political, economic, or military postures.
While the ASEAN Free Trade Area has made strides in tariff reduction, wide disparities persist. Singapore boasts high per capita income and advanced infrastructure, while countries like Cambodia, Laos, and Myanmar continue to struggle with poverty, fragile institutions, and uncertain futures. The World Bank recently revised Cambodia's 2025 growth forecast down to 4 per cent, citing a range of economic vulnerabilities.
Also Read: Trump's Ukraine U-turn puts Russia's trade partners at risk. India caught in the middle
Fragmented security postures
In security terms, ASEAN remains a mosaic of national agendas, even in the face of China's aggressive build-up in the South China Sea and its expansive nine-dash line claims over the EEZs of several member states. A common threat should have united the bloc. But as China is also ASEAN's largest trading partner, siding against it remains unaffordable for most, even those with a pro-West tilt.
Military modernisation is progressing, but along divergent paths. Between 2013 and 2022, the region spent approximately $60.9 billion on weapons procurement and defence R&D, according to the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS). But looking closer, these investments reflect broader geopolitical alignments: some countries lean toward the US, like Thailand and the Philippines; some toward China, such as Cambodia, Laos, and Myanmar; and some are building ties with Russia, such as Vietnam and Indonesia. The presence of the UK and France, as well as the growing influence of Turkey and Israel in the region, adds further layers of complexity.
From imperial maps to military clashes
Southeast Asia has long been a stage for Great Power rivalry. The roots of the current Thailand-Cambodia conflict lie in the 1907 Franco-Siamese Treaty. Under pressure from both Britain and France, Siam (modern-day Thailand) ceded territories to the French. At the time, Cambodia was under French rule, and the treaty left many areas of the border vague—sowing the seeds of future disputes.
During World War II, Siam allied with Japan and briefly regained some of the lost territory. But following Japan's defeat, these areas returned to French control. When Cambodia gained independence in 1953, the problematic colonial borders remained.
One hotspot is the Preah Vihear Temple. Though the International Court of Justice awarded it to Cambodia in 1962, the surrounding territory was left undefined, allowing the conflict to simmer.
The Cold War further complicated the picture. Cambodia's civil war, the Khmer Rouge regime, and Vietnam's 1978 invasion turned the Thai-Cambodian border into a Cold War flashpoint. The US, China, and several ASEAN members supported anti-Vietnamese resistance, including remnants of the Khmer Rouge. Even after Vietnam withdrew in 1989, and the 1991 Paris Peace Accords attempted to stabilise the region, no durable border resolution was reached.
Efforts at rapprochement resumed in the 2000s, culminating in a February 2024 strategic partnership between Cambodia and Thailand focused on de-escalation. But on 28 May 2025, a deadly clash between patrols in a disputed area killed a Cambodian soldier, shattering the fragile peace.
Since then, serious escalation has happened.
New theatre for the new Cold War?
In the ongoing military standoff, Thailand has clearly dominated from the get-go. The skies over Southeast Asia quickly became a theatre of conflict, with Thailand deploying its F-16 fighter jets and reportedly decimating Cambodia's 8th and 9th infantry divisions. For the first time, Thailand also fielded its Ukrainian-made T-84 Oplot-M main battle tanks in combat, facing off against Cambodia's outdated T-55s. The disparity in military capabilities between the two countries is not merely significant—it is exponentially vast.
Cambodia's decision to escalate, despite its weaker military, raises questions. One possible explanation is Chinese backing—part of a broader strategy to test the limits of US commitment to its allies. US arms sales, including to Thailand, are governed by strict end-use agreements that limit how and against whom they can be deployed. It is unlikely Thailand would have used F-16s without prior US consent.
If true, this suggests Washington tacitly approved Thailand's response—a subtle yet pointed signal to Beijing, which has become Cambodia's chief military patron since 2017. After Cambodia dissolved its main opposition party and jailed political leaders, the US slashed aid. China quickly stepped in with military equipment, training, and joint exercises such as 'Golden Dragon'.
More concerning is China's role in expanding the Ream Naval Base on Cambodia's southern coast. Though not officially a military base, satellite imagery shows a pier nearly identical in length and design to one at China's Djibouti base—capable of docking its largest aircraft carriers. US officials have repeatedly raised concerns about growing Chinese military access to the base.
These developments may explain why Washington allowed Thailand to respond forcefully—viewing it as an opportunity to counterbalance Chinese influence.
Also Read: Paradox of India's S-400 deal—key asset delayed when country needs it most
The wider web of power projection
This conflict must also be understood in the broader context of foreign power projection in Southeast Asia.
The US has deepened ties with the Philippines, now one of ASEAN's most hawkish voices on China. Meanwhile, the UK exerts influence through the Five Power Defence Arrangements (FPDA)—a long-standing, though non-binding, security pact with Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia, and Singapore.
This agreement, notably, was originally designed to ensure peace between Malaysia and Singapore. For the uninitiated, on 9 August 1965, Singapore officially parted ways with Malaysia, becoming an independent and sovereign nation. The split was driven by serious political and economic disagreements between the leadership of both countries, which had fuelled communal tensions and led to racial riots in July and September 1964. Although those tensions have long since eased, the UK continues to maintain its involvement through existing defence agreements and regular military exercises.
France, another former colonial power, also maintains a strategic presence in the Indo-Pacific. It often champions 'strategic autonomy,' positioning itself as a balancing force in a region crowded with competing powers—though it would side with NATO allies if a hot war broke out.
Even intra-ASEAN military tensions carry geopolitical implications. Indonesia, for example, has long struggled to fully control its airspace, as parts of it—including the skies over the Riau Islands and the Strait of Malacca—are under Singaporean operational control. Jakarta is now addressing these concerns by upgrading its air defence capabilities, including a $10 billion deal for Turkish-built KAAN fifth-generation fighter jets, which will involve significant contributions from Pakistani engineers. It has also ordered a huge number of Rafale jets from France, amid other equipment.
At its core, the Southeast Asian theatre remains central to the unfolding Great Power contest between the US and China (backed by Russia). But it is also a landscape where middle powers—France, the UK, Turkey, and others—continue to shape the strategic environment in nuanced but significant ways.
The Thailand-Cambodia escalation underscores not only the unresolved trauma of colonial legacies but also how quickly they can be weaponised in today's fraught geopolitical climate.
As great powers manoeuvre and middle powers assert their influence, the Indo-Pacific grows more complex. With war now an ever-present possibility rather than a distant threat, Southeast Asia finds itself not just at the centre of Cold War 2.0—but at the frontline of an increasingly crowded, competitive, and dangerous global order.
Swasti Rao is a Consulting Editor (International and Strategic Affairs) at ThePrint. She tweets @swasrao. Views are personal.
(Edited by Asavari Singh)
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Indian shares inch lower as Kotak earnings drag financials, trade deal delay weighs
Indian shares inch lower as Kotak earnings drag financials, trade deal delay weighs

Mint

time20 minutes ago

  • Mint

Indian shares inch lower as Kotak earnings drag financials, trade deal delay weighs

By Bharath Rajeswaran and Vivek Kumar M (Reuters) -Indian shares inched lower on Monday as weak results from Kotak Mahindra Bank weighed on sentiment, while uncertainty over trade talks with the U.S. added to overall caution. The Nifty 50 fell 0.16% to 24,798.9 points and the BSE Sensex lost 0.2% to 81,325.4 as of 10:03 a.m. IST. The broader small-caps and mid-caps lost 0.3% and 0.2%, respectively. Negotiations between India and the United States remained deadlocked over tariff cuts on agriculture and dairy products, dimming hopes of an interim deal ahead of U.S. President Donald Trump's August 1 deadline. This is in contrast to a framework trade agreement struck between the U.S. and European Union over the weekend, easing fears of a bigger trade war between the two allies, which account for almost a third of global trade. High-weightage financials and private banks lost 0.2% and 1%, respectively, dragged by a 7% fall in Kotak Mahindra Bank after it posted a drop in quarterly profit. The IT index lost 0.5%, with Tata Consultancy Services shedding 1.6% after it announced plans to reduce its workforce by 2% in fiscal year 2026. The Nifty 50 and 30-stock Sensex have logged four consecutive weekly losses due to weak earnings, foreign outflows and uncertainty over the U.S.-India trade deal. "A dull earnings season and the lingering delay in the India-U.S. trade deal have clearly cast a shadow on market sentiment. With valuations still stretched across the board, investors are understandably treading with heightened caution," said G Chokkalingam, founder and head of research at Equinomics Research. Among individual stocks, Mphasis gained 2.4% on posting quarterly results in-line with estimates and on strong deal bookings, which has boosted the IT company's revenue growth outlook. SBI Cards and Payment Services lost 3.7% after missing profit estimates in the June quarter. (Reporting by Vivek Kumar M and Bharath Rajeswaran; Editing by Eileen Soreng and Mrigank Dhaniwala)

Market in consolidation mode; triggers needed, says Sunil Subramaniam
Market in consolidation mode; triggers needed, says Sunil Subramaniam

Economic Times

time20 minutes ago

  • Economic Times

Market in consolidation mode; triggers needed, says Sunil Subramaniam

Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads "Another reason for pharma's past underperformance is that FIIs were driving the selling pressure. They closely track export-oriented sectors. So the recent post-results bounce in pharma is largely driven by DIIs. FIIs still haven't firmed up their stance on India. They remain a bit cautious, especially because the delay in the BTA (Bilateral Trade Agreement) hasn't helped sentiment," says Sunil Subramaniam , Market like you said, the question is—why were they under pressure in the first place? I'd call it the Trump effect. Mr. Trump has been talking a lot about imposing heavy pharma tariffs. He hasn't actually done anything yet, but every time he makes such statements, it creates nervousness—whether he's targeting CDMO players or generics, and how he plans to go about it. That uncertainty has impacted the pharma sector, putting it under when individual companies are reporting good numbers, the market has no choice but to buy into them—because at least those companies are indicating a positive outlook. Plus, some of them may not even be impacted by tariffs, creating a window of opportunity. Also, the pharma space includes domestic-oriented businesses like hospitals and diagnostics, which are unaffected by U.S. tariff issues. So overall, pharma remains a defensive reason for pharma's past underperformance is that FIIs were driving the selling pressure. They closely track export-oriented sectors. So the recent post-results bounce in pharma is largely driven by DIIs. FIIs still haven't firmed up their stance on India. They remain a bit cautious, especially because the delay in the BTA (Bilateral Trade Agreement) hasn't helped we need to understand the market's movement over the last three months. Post-March, FIIs were actually buyers in April and May, and even in June, though to a lesser extent. Meanwhile, if you look at the end of March, mutual fund DIIs—especially domestic mutual funds—had built up cash positions to around 7.25% of their April and May, both mutual funds and FIIs were buying, which supported the market. But starting this month, mutual fund cash levels are back down to around 5%, which is close to their lower limit. That means DIIs don't have as much cash left to deploy, apart from the fresh SIP looking at last earnings season and market levels, domestic funds have largely deployed their cash. FIIs, on the other hand, had expected some action around the BTA by July 9, which then got pushed to August 1. But now, even that deadline seems unlikely to be met. The Indian trade delegation has returned from the U.S. without a deal. Sticking points remain—like agriculture—and they won't be easy to the question now is whether Trump will extend the 10% tariff pause beyond August 1 or slap a 26% tariff on India and then negotiate, like he did with Japan—imposing higher tariffs first and then signing a deal at 19%. That kind of uncertainty around the India-U.S. BTA is keeping FIIs factor is China. While China and the U.S. haven't signed a full BTA either, they seem to have reached some understanding. Meanwhile, China's markets have been beaten down so much that the one-year forward P/E is around 11—compared to India's 22. And China's economy is about 4.5 times larger than India's. Even at 4% growth, those are big numbers. So FIIs are starting to see more value in China, pulling some attention away from as for your question on the next trigger—clearly, a breakthrough on the BTA front, like an interim deal or assurance that tariffs will be capped below 20%, could bring FIIs back. On the domestic side, it's the ongoing earnings season. Results have been mixed. The IT sector, for instance, didn't post terrible earnings, but weak guidance is weighing heavily, especially in the absence of FII DIIs have already used most of their cash, their incremental buying will depend on the inflow from SIPs and earnings results. So companies with strong earnings and forward guidance will likely get DII if the early festival season gives good signs on the consumption front, that could also be a positive trigger. Until then, expect the market to remain in a sideways, consolidative phase for some time.

The chatbot culture wars are here
The chatbot culture wars are here

Indian Express

time20 minutes ago

  • Indian Express

The chatbot culture wars are here

For much of the past decade, America's partisan culture warriors have fought over the contested territory of social media — arguing about whether the rules on Facebook and Twitter were too strict or too lenient, whether YouTube and TikTok censored too much or too little and whether Silicon Valley tech companies were systematically silencing right-wing voices. Those battles aren't over. But a new one has already started. This fight is over artificial intelligence, and whether the outputs of leading AI chatbots such as ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini are politically biased. Conservatives have been taking aim at AI companies for months. In March, House Republicans subpoenaed a group of leading AI developers, probing them for information about whether they colluded with the Biden administration to suppress right-wing speech. And this month, Missouri's Republican attorney general, Andrew Bailey, opened an investigation into whether Google, Meta, Microsoft and OpenAI are leading a 'new wave of censorship' by training their AI systems to give biased responses to questions about President Donald Trump. On Wednesday, Trump himself joined the fray, issuing an executive order on what he called 'woke AI.' 'Once and for all, we are getting rid of woke,' he said in a speech. 'The American people do not want woke Marxist lunacy in the AI models, and neither do other countries.' The order was announced alongside a new White House AI action plan that will require AI developers that receive federal contracts to ensure that their models' outputs are 'objective and free from top-down ideological bias.' Republicans have been complaining about AI bias since at least early last year, when a version of Google's Gemini AI system generated historically inaccurate images of the American Founding Fathers, depicting them as racially diverse. That incident drew the fury of online conservatives, and led to accusations that leading AI companies were training their models to parrot liberal ideology. Since then, top Republicans have mounted pressure campaigns to try to force AI companies to disclose more information about how their systems are built, and tweak their chatbots' outputs to reflect a broader set of political views. Now, with the White House's executive order, Trump and his allies are using the threat of taking away lucrative federal contracts — OpenAI, Anthropic, Google and xAI were recently awarded Defense Department contracts worth as much as $200 million — to try to force AI companies to address their concerns. The order directs federal agencies to limit their use of AI systems to those that put a priority on 'truth-seeking' and 'ideological neutrality' over disfavored concepts such as diversity, equity and inclusion. It also directs the Office of Management and Budget to issue guidance to agencies about which systems meet those criteria. If this playbook sounds familiar, it's because it mirrors the way Republicans have gone after social media companies for years — using legal threats, hostile congressional hearings and cherry-picked examples to pressure companies into changing their policies, or removing content they don't like. Critics of this strategy call it 'jawboning,' and it was the subject of a high-profile Supreme Court case last year. In that case, Murthy v. Missouri, it was Democrats who were accused of pressuring social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter to take down posts on topics such as the coronavirus vaccine and election fraud, and Republicans challenging their tactics as unconstitutional. (In a 6-3 decision, the court rejected the challenge, saying the plaintiffs lacked standing.) Now, the parties have switched sides. Republican officials, including several Trump administration officials I spoke to who were involved in the executive order, are arguing that pressuring AI companies through the federal procurement process is necessary to stop AI developers from putting their thumbs on the scale. Is that hypocritical? Sure. But recent history suggests that working the refs this way can be effective. Meta ended its long-standing fact-checking program this year, and YouTube changed its policies in 2023 to allow more election denial content. Critics of both changes viewed them as capitulation to right-wing critics. This time around, the critics cite examples of AI chatbots that seemingly refuse to praise Trump, even when prompted to do so, or Chinese-made chatbots that refuse to answer questions about the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre. They believe developers are deliberately baking a left-wing worldview into their models, one that will be dangerously amplified as AI is integrated into fields such as education and health care. There are a few problems with this argument, according to legal and tech policy experts I spoke to. The first, and most glaring, is that pressuring AI companies to change their chatbots' outputs may violate the First Amendment. In recent cases like Moody v. NetChoice, the Supreme Court has upheld the rights of social media companies to enforce their own content moderation policies. And courts may reject the Trump administration's argument that it is trying to enforce a neutral standard for government contractors, rather than interfering with protected speech. 'What it seems like they're doing is saying, 'If you're producing outputs we don't like, that we call biased, we're not going to give you federal funding that you would otherwise receive,'' Genevieve Lakier, a law professor at the University of Chicago, said. 'That seems like an unconstitutional act of jawboning.' There is also the problem of defining what, exactly, a 'neutral' or 'unbiased' AI system is. Today's AI chatbots are complex, probability-based systems that are trained to make predictions, not give hard-coded answers. Two ChatGPT users may see wildly different responses to the same prompts, depending on variables like their chat histories and which versions of the model they're using. And testing an AI system for bias isn't as simple as feeding it a list of questions about politics and seeing how it responds. Samir Jain, a vice president of policy at the Center for Democracy and Technology, a nonprofit civil liberties group, said the Trump administration's executive order would set 'a really vague standard that's going to be impossible for providers to meet.' There is also a technical problem with telling AI systems how to behave. Namely, they don't always listen. Just ask Elon Musk. For years, Musk has been trying to create an AI chatbot, Grok, that embodies his vision of a rebellious, 'anti-woke' truth seeker. But Grok's behavior has been erratic and unpredictable. At times, it adopts an edgy, far-right personality, or spouts antisemitic language in response to user prompts. (For a brief period last week, it referred to itself as 'Mecha-Hitler.') At other times, it acts like a liberal — telling users, for example, that human-made climate change is real, or that the right is responsible for more political violence than the left. Recently, Musk has lamented that AI systems have a liberal bias that is 'tough to remove, because there is so much woke content on the internet.' Nathan Lambert, a research scientist at the Allen Institute for AI, told me that 'controlling the many subtle answers that an AI will give when pressed is a leading-edge technical problem, often governed in practice by messy interactions made between a few earlier decisions.' It's not, in other words, as straightforward as telling an AI chatbot to be less woke. And while there are relatively simple tweaks that developers could make to their chatbots — such as changing the 'model spec,' a set of instructions given to AI models about how they should act — there's no guarantee that these changes will consistently produce the behavior conservatives want. But asking whether the Trump administration's new rules can survive legal challenges, or whether AI developers can actually build chatbots that comply with them, may be beside the point. These campaigns are designed to intimidate. And faced with the potential loss of lucrative government contracts, AI companies, like their social media predecessors, may find it easier to give in than to fight. 'Even if the executive order violates the First Amendment, it may very well be the case that no one challenges it,' Lakier said. 'I'm surprised by how easily these powerful companies have folded.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store