Border Fire, Regional Fallout: Thailand, Cambodia, and the Fragility of Peace in Southeast Asia

The Hindu

4 days ago

On 24 July 2025, the long-disputed Thailand–Cambodia border once again erupted into open violence. Cambodian rocket fire reportedly killed Thai civilians and soldiers in Surin Province. In response, Thai F‑16 fighter jets carried out airstrikes near the Ta Muen Thom temple complex, escalating what had been a tense standoff into a full-blown military clash. Within hours, diplomatic relations nosedived—Thailand expelled the Cambodian ambassador, suspended border trade through major checkpoints, and deployed additional troops to reinforce its frontier.
From Phnom Penh, Prime Minister Hun Manet condemned the Thai airstrikes as 'unprovoked aggression' and urgently appealed to the United Nations Security Council. Images of bomb craters, wounded villagers, and smouldering fields flashed across Cambodian state television. In Bangkok, the military framed its response as self-defence and insisted Cambodia had violated Thai sovereignty. Yet beyond the rhetoric and the troop movements lies a more concerning truth: this is no ordinary border dispute. It is a symptom of deeper regional instability and a stark warning about the declining capacity of ASEAN to maintain peace among its members.
The conflict is rooted in long-standing historical disputes over border demarcation, particularly around temple complexes such as Preah Vihear and Ta Muen Thom. Though the International Court of Justice ruled in Cambodia's favour in 1962 and again in 2013 with respect to Preah Vihear, adjacent areas remain contested. The Ta Muen Thom temple, located in the Dangrek range, is similarly caught in cartographic ambiguity. While clashes in the past were sporadic and localised, the current situation is qualitatively different. Both governments are using the incident to rally nationalist support at home, entrenching positions that make de-escalation more difficult.
In Thailand, the crisis coincides with a period of domestic political uncertainty. Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra was suspended just weeks earlier following the leak of a private conversation with Cambodian leaders, raising questions about civilian authority and foreign policy decision-making. The military's prompt retaliation, coupled with the ambassador's expulsion, marks a reassertion of hardline nationalism. In Cambodia, Hun Manet has used the incident to project strength and unity, positioning himself as the custodian of national sovereignty. Both sides are appealing to nationalist sentiments, reinforcing a cycle of confrontation with limited space for dialogue.
What is particularly striking is the institutional vacuum into which this conflict has emerged. While ASEAN is yet to convene an emergency summit, appoint a special envoy, or offer a structured mediation process. The bloc's slow response contrasts sharply with the urgency of the situation. Cambodia's turn to the UN for redress is a clear sign of eroding confidence in ASEAN's ability to manage intra-regional disputes. While individual ASEAN members—most notably Indonesia and Singapore—have urged both parties to de-escalate, the regional body appears paralysed.
The diplomatic fallout is already taking a toll. Cross-border trade, which supports thousands of livelihoods along the Thai–Cambodian frontier, has come to a halt. The tourism sector, recovering from years of pandemic-induced disruption, now faces renewed cancellations and travel advisories. At the geopolitical level, the crisis opens the door for external actors to play a greater role. China, which maintains strong bilateral ties with both governments, could step in to offer mediation. But such a role is unlikely to be viewed as neutral, particularly in Thailand, where concerns about Chinese influence have intensified in recent years. Meanwhile, Japan and the United States have both expressed concern, raising the prospect of a broader strategic entanglement if the situation worsens.
For India, the clash is deeply troubling. As a key strategic partner of ASEAN and an advocate of its centrality in the Indo-Pacific, India has invested heavily in connectivity and trade across Southeast Asia. The India–Myanmar–Thailand Trilateral Highway, for example, hinges on border stability and regional coordination. If ASEAN is unable to fulfil its role as a security anchor, India's own regional engagement could be affected. Moreover, the dispute underscores the importance of effective multilateral institutions. India has always emphasised diplomacy and peaceful dispute resolution—principles that are now under strain in its extended neighbourhood.
There is still a narrow window for de-escalation. A ceasefire agreement, ideally brokered through ASEAN's more capable members or with international support, must be prioritised. The Treaty of Amity and Cooperation offers mechanisms such as the High Council for mediation—mechanisms that must be activated. If bilateral efforts fail, a neutral monitoring arrangement under UN or ASEAN auspices could help stabilise the situation. But long-term peace will require more than ceasefires. It will need renewed political will, institutional reform within ASEAN, and a return to diplomacy over spectacle.
What is unfolding between Thailand and Cambodia today is more than a frontier skirmish. It is a test of Southeast Asia's ability to preserve peace without descending into hardened nationalism or external dependency. The bullets may have been exchanged along an ancient border, but the real battleground is the future of regional cooperation. ASEAN cannot afford to remain silent. And the region cannot afford another failure.
'This article is part of sponsored content programme.'