U.S. Diplomats Will Join Thailand-Cambodia Cease-Fire Talks, Rubio Says
The leaders of Cambodia and Thailand agreed on Sunday to begin cease-fire talks in Malaysia's capital, Kuala Lumpur. President Trump said he had spoken to both leaders and that U.S. officials would not negotiate trade deals with either country unless the fighting stopped.
At least 35 people have been killed since the combat began on Thursday, and hundreds of thousands of civilians have fled the border areas where it is taking place. Fighting apparently continued early Monday, with the sound of explosions heard near the border before dawn.
The conflict flared after two months of tension over contested territory. As of Monday, the death toll exceeded that from the last outbreak of deadly battles in the region, between 2008 and 2011, during which 34 people were killed, according to an academic paper.
Some Cambodians have fled to the homes of family members and friends here in Siem Reap, the site of the ancient Angkor Wat temple complex. Siem Reap has been untouched by the violence, but at Hindu and Buddhist shrines around Angkor Wat, people have held ceremonies to pray for a quick resolution to the war. On Sunday, after Mr. Trump announced his diplomatic intervention, residents began talking in hopeful terms of an American role in prodding the warring governments toward a cease-fire.
Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
10 minutes ago
- Forbes
When Silence Speaks: The Doctrine Of Communication By Conduct
Majeed Javdani is a Board Member of Mercator Group and an internationally recognized practitioner in law and business. In a world increasingly saturated with instant messages, press releases and diplomatic declarations, it is tempting to assume that international relations are shaped by what is said. Yet, seasoned observers of geopolitical strategy understand a deeper, subtler truth: What is done often speaks more clearly than what is said. This brings us to a principle that sits quietly at the center of international law and diplomacy—communication by conduct. This mode of interaction operates beneath the surface of formal negotiation. It bypasses the volatility of words and ideological assertions, relying instead on actions—restrained, repeated or intentionally withheld—to convey strategic intentions. In environments where language has become too loaded or relationships too adversarial for open dialogue, conduct becomes the lingua franca of diplomacy. The doctrine of communication by conduct is not merely a theoretical construct. It is rooted in the foundational logic of international law itself, specifically in the principle of customary law. Under this doctrine, consistent and general state practice, when coupled with a sense of legal obligation, crystallizes into binding legal norms. This is not just about precedent—it is about how behavior builds legitimacy. States do not need to sign a treaty to show compliance with an international norm; often, they simply need to behave in a way that others interpret as recognition of that norm. This behavioral logic extends into the diplomatic realm. Silence, when paired with inaction or deliberate moderation, is never neutral in global politics. It is often read, rightly or wrongly, as an intentional message. And it is this interpretive space—where conduct becomes legible as policy—that the doctrine operates most powerfully. Unlike strategic ambiguity, which aims to obscure intentions to gain leverage, communication by conduct is inherently about clarity—albeit a clarity achieved through implication, not assertion. It creates space for de-escalation, recalibration and quiet coordination, all without triggering the political costs of formal declarations or public alignment. It enables rival actors to feel each other out without committing to an irreversible path. In this respect, it is less of a diplomatic tool and more of a diplomatic environment—an atmosphere in which policy is shaped through restraint, repetition and refusal. One key reason communication by conduct remains durable in the practice of statecraft is because it transcends language and ideology. It relies not on what a state claims to value, but on what it demonstrably prioritizes. In moments of crisis or strategic recalibration, when explicit engagement may be too risky or politically untenable, conduct becomes the only available channel for credible signaling. The key metric is not volume, but consistency. What matters is whether a pattern of behavior emerges that others can interpret and anticipate. This raises the question of interpretation. After all, conduct, unlike contractual language, does not define itself. It must be read, and all readings are contextual. In this ambiguity lies both the strength and vulnerability of the doctrine. On one hand, it allows states to test strategic shifts in a deniable format; on the other, it opens the door to misinterpretation, escalation or diplomatic paralysis. This interpretive complexity is why communication by conduct must be viewed as a layered process, not a one-off signal. One action may be ambiguous; 10 consistent actions begin to look like a message. And when that consistency aligns with a broader policy trend or institutional adjustment, it becomes increasingly difficult to ignore its strategic meaning. In many ways, the doctrine is a counterbalance to the performance of diplomacy. Whereas formal diplomacy operates in the spotlight—with joint statements, red-carpet visits and sound bites—communication by conduct happens in the shadows. It is quiet, cumulative and often retroactively understood. But this does not make it passive. On the contrary, it requires intention, discipline and a long-term strategic view. It is the diplomacy of the serious. This framework is particularly relevant in an age where the tools of coercion and persuasion are expanding beyond the battlefield and negotiation table. Sanctions, supply chain disruptions, regulatory delays or even the withholding of military or economic support are all actions that speak volumes—whether or not anyone is speaking. And when such conduct is repeated across time, interpreted consistently by observers and unchallenged by the international community, it begins to constitute a normative message. What this means for business leaders, policymakers and international observers is straightforward: Watching what states do is often more instructive than listening to what they say. This does not mean that words are irrelevant. Rather, it means that conduct supplies the evidentiary base that gives meaning to language. A diplomatic statement, no matter how eloquent, must be supported by action to carry weight. Without such alignment, rhetoric becomes noise. This understanding also has practical implications for interpreting strategic risk and opportunity. Investors looking at foreign markets, legal advisors evaluating compliance landscapes and analysts tracking geopolitical trends would all benefit from applying the lens of communication by conduct. When a state begins quietly relaxing enforcement on a domestic regulation, or when it abstains from retaliation in the face of provocation, these are not anomalies—they are signals. Importantly, communication by conduct does not necessarily aim for resolution. It often precedes negotiation, conditions it or exists alongside it. It may mark the beginning of a strategic thaw or simply serve as a stabilizing force in a volatile situation. Either way, it creates room. And in diplomacy, room is everything—room to think, adjust and reposition without losing face or triggering escalation. The challenge, of course, lies in ensuring that such communication is recognized, interpreted accurately and reciprocated in kind. This requires not only diplomatic literacy but also the institutional memory to track patterns, connect signals and identify when conduct begins to cohere into policy. It also requires restraint: the willingness to allow ambiguity when clarity would be counterproductive. In a world where overcommunication often leads to confusion and escalation, conduct reminds us that sometimes the most powerful statements are made without words. For those who know how to read them, these statements are never silent. Forbes Communications Council is an invitation-only community for executives in successful public relations, media strategy, creative and advertising agencies. Do I qualify?
Yahoo
38 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Kremlin says it 'noted' Trump's statement on shorter deadline for a ceasefire in Ukraine
MOSCOW (Reuters) -The Kremlin said on Tuesday that it had "taken note" of a statement by U.S. President Donald Trump that he was shortening his deadline for Moscow to sign up to a ceasefire in Ukraine or face sanctions. Trump set a new deadline on Monday of 10 or 12 days for Russia to make progress toward ending the war in Ukraine or face consequences, underscoring frustration with President Vladimir Putin over the 3-1/2-year-old conflict. Asked about Trump's statement on Tuesday during a conference call with reporters, the Kremlin kept its remarks short. "We have taken note of President Trump's statement yesterday. The special military operation continues," said Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov, employing the term that Moscow uses for its war effort in Ukraine. "We remain committed to a peace process to resolve the conflict around Ukraine and to ensure our interests in the course of this settlement." Trump threatened on July 14 to impose new sanctions on Russia and buyers of its exports within 50 days, a deadline which would have expired in early September. But on Monday, during a visit to Britain, he shortened that deadline and said: "There's no reason in waiting... We just don't see any progress being made." Trump, who has held half a dozen calls with the Kremlin leader since returning to the White House in January, also said he was "not so interested in talking any more". Peskov declined to comment on that remark.
Epoch Times
41 minutes ago
- Epoch Times
Rubio Applauds Cease-Fire as Thailand-Cambodia Border Remains Tense
Secretary of State Marco Rubio has applauded the cease-fire between Thailand and Cambodia, which came into effect at midnight local time on Tuesday, and appears to be holding after initial confusion. After five days of fighting along the border between the two nations, which claimed at least 41 lives, Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Manet and Thai Acting Prime Minister Phumtham Wechayachai agreed to an unconditional cease-fire after a meeting in Malaysia on Monday.
