www.stratsea.com
Introduction
The morning of 24 July 2025 started off with a brief but fierce gunfight between Thai and Cambodian troops dispatched to a poorly demarcated area around a disputed ancient Hindu temple, Prasat Ta Muen Thom, which is accessible by the people of both sides.
As expected, Thailand and Cambodia accused each other of starting the fight. The risk for deadly confrontation was obvious given recent developments and the military buildup in the area. But neither side had the political courage to rethink their strategy for fear of looking weak in the eyes of their constituency.
Lack of unity between the political leaders in Bangkok and the Thai army made policy coordination that much more difficult. Cambodia, on the other hand, was getting on Thai troops’ last good nerve with the digging of trenches around the disputed area earlier this year.
To recap, armed clashes erupted on 28 May 2025, resulting in the death of one Cambodian soldier. Ten days later, on 8 June 2025, regional commanders from both sides met and agreed to fill up the trenches and withdraw their soldiers from the disputed location. They shook hands and posed for a photo and then retreated to their previous positions before the confrontation in late May.
But the absence of clashes does not spell peace. Cambodia was determined to take this case, along with other disputed territories on the border, to the International Court of Justice (ICJ); the Thai government rejected the idea, saying it is committed to bilateral negotiations through the Joint Boundary Commission (JBC) and will not accept the ICJ’s jurisdiction.
Things went downhill quickly on 18 June 2025 after Cambodia’s President of the Senate Hun Sen leaked a private phone conversation he had with the then Thai prime minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra three days earlier.
Besides the appearance of kowtowing to Cambodia, Paetongtarn made a critical remark about one of her senior military commanders, referring to him as an “opponent” who just “wanted to look tough.”
Street protests erupted in Bangkok as demonstrators called for her resignation.
Colonial Legacy Complicates Resolution
Asking Thailand and Cambodia leaders to think constructively about border affairs may be unrealistic given that the disputes are rooted in the colonial past—a legacy from which Thailand has struggled to move forward.
Thailand’s refusal to accept its colonial legacy goes beyond simply lamenting past losses. Consider Siam’s “lost” territories to British Malaya: the surrender of what are now northern Malaysian states – Kedah and Kelantan – continues to shape the Thai national psyche. “It was ours, and we gave it to the British for peace’s sake,” goes the common refrain.
The Thai state does not make a big issue of these “losses”, partly because Malaysia does not politicise the issue or rub it in Thailand’s face. Demarcation along the Thai-Malaysian political border is conducted by technical officials from both sides without incident, although separatist insurgency in Thailand’s Malay-speaking South serves as a reminder that post-colonial nation-state construction is never without challenges.
Nonetheless, Thailand is not alone in dealing with historical hangups. In 2003, deep-rooted resentment in Cambodia resulted in an anti-Thai riot that ended in an arson attack against the Thai embassy in Phnom Penh after a Thai actress was reported to have said Angkor Wat, one of the world’s most important archaeological sites, belongs to Thailand.
Instead of making the hard choice between explaining to their respective citizens about the injustice of the colonial past and the need to come to terms with it, Thai and Cambodian political leaders took the easy way out by exploiting this resentment for quick political gains.
International Arena Becomes Battlefield
The competition extends beyond the battlefield as military actions coincided with intense diplomatic outreach, with both Thailand and Cambodia attempting to control the narrative. Both countries have turned to ASEAN, the United Nations and members of the international community to present their respective cases.
Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Manet succeeded in getting the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to an urgent meeting “to stop Thailand’s aggression” but fail to get the Council to issue a resolution to call for an immediate ceasefire.
Thailand, in turn, has accused Cambodia of committing war crimes for targeting civilians and of violating a major international convention, the Ottawa Treaty, for planting fresh mines around Prasat Ta Muen Thom. Cambodia denied the allegations and added that the blast site was well within Cambodian territory.
Thailand fell short of calling on the treaty’s secretariat to send a fact-finding mission to investigate the incident. The blast site is part of a larger minefield, known as the K5 Belt, where the Thailand/China-backed Khmer Rouge fought the Vietnam-supported People’s Republic of Kampuchea throughout the 1980s. Both sides had flooded the area with landmines that, 50 years later, have yet to be fully removed. Neither Thailand nor Cambodia is a party to the Convention on Cluster Munitions.
Thailand is unable to convince members of the international community of its justification to reject Cambodia’s proposal to allow ICJ to rule on the overlapping claims of the Ta Muen Thom Temple. The country has not been able to move on from the 1962 ICJ ruling that, based on the French map, gave the Preah Vihear temple to Cambodia. Thailand reluctantly accepted the ruling but continued to dispute the area surrounding the temple.
Pursuing the road towards ICJ may put Cambodia in a positive light in the eyes of the international community, but – as one Bangkok-based diplomat noted – this path was undermined when Cambodian rockets landed on Thai public schools, hospitals and a convenience store.
Taking the Moral High Ground
With a high number of displaced people and damaged properties, both sides appeared to have exercised some degree of restraint and confined the fighting to the border provinces. No major infrastructure or commercial assets in the border region have come under attack.
Footage of Thai villagers and school children running for cover prompted Thai citizens, particularly the conservative nationalists, to inflict more punishment on Cambodia. Their past public campaign forced previous Thai governments to go against Cambodia’s effort to obtain the United Nations World Heritage Site status for the Preah Vihear temple, which was granted in 2008.
Thailand’s deployment of F-16 fighter jets demonstrated the country’s superior military power. By limiting air and artillery attacks to military targets, Thailand appeared to be seeking international respect for embracing international norms.
Thailand’s race to the moral high ground may not be an easy climb, however. The Cambodian government was quick to point out that Thai airstrikes and artillery fire had damaged the Preah Vihear temple, not to mention the use of internationally prohibited cluster munitions.
In a statement dated 25 July 2025, the Thai army said cluster munitions were used for military targets only. The problem with cluster bombs is that a significant percentage of submunitions fail to detonate upon impact, leaving behind unexploded ordnance, turning the area into de facto landmines.
In the past, the aftermath of border gunfights followed a similar pattern: Thai and Cambodian troops would sit together the next day, eating lunch with their bare hands in a traditional style, showing the world that both countries have patched things up and moved on. This time, however, the fallout will be more costly in many ways. Lives have been lost, and raw emotions have poured out on social media, creating narratives beyond the control of any state agency’s public relations machines. Anyone with a mobile phone can now report on developments as they see fit.
Mediation in Kuala Lumpur
With Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim mediating the negotiation, Thailand and Cambodia came face-to-face in Malaysia as representatives from the United States and China observed the talks. Cambodia got the ceasefire that they wanted, starting on the midnight of 28 July 2025. The two sides vowed to meet regularly with Malaysia, while fellow ASEAN Member States (AMS) will serve as observers.
In the coming days, Thailand is expected to tell the world that its military might had forced the Cambodians to stand down. Domestically, the Thai army will use this opportunity to strengthen its institution and remain politically assertive amid a growing call for reform, which, in Thailand’s context, means armed forces should stay out of politics.
For Cambodia, the narrative is likely to centre on how a small nation stood up to a neighbour, one that failed to diminish Cambodia’s fighting spirit despite its superior firepower. Cambodia will use this crisis to solidify Prime Minister Hun Manet’s nationalist credentials. But given Cambodians’ restlessness due to economic downturn, this will not be easy.
The transition of power from strongman Hun Sen to his son, Manet, has been difficult, as the young leader has yet to convince his countrymen that he can lead them to a better future.
After leading Cambodia for four decades, his father left him with big shoes to fill. The world watched Hun Sen as he went through wars and genocide, emerging politically powerful and financially wealthy. The same cannot be said for Cambodia’s people, who are currently struggling to make ends meet.
Ordinary Cambodians are frustrated with the current conditions, but they are without outlets to voice their complaints. Indeed, the Hun family members control all media platforms, both online and offline. The National Assembly has 125 seats with Hun Sen as the president of the ruling Cambodia People’s Party; five seats are occupied by friendly oppositions.
Cambodia is turning to Vietnam and China while shutting down economic ties with Thailand. Whether this will offset the loss of income from one million Cambodian migrant workers who depend on Thailand for employment, on the other hand, remains to be seen.
The Pheu Thai-led government had initially clashed with the army over how to handle border affairs with Cambodia—specifically whether to close checkpoints as punishment or keep them open while pursuing diplomatic solutions. However, the Pheu Thai Party-led administration has been effectively sidelined after Hun Sen leaked the phone conversation, forcing the government to run for cover.
Following a petition from a group of senators, the Constitutional Court on 1 July 2025 suspended Paetongtarn from her post pending an ethics investigation. Since then, the Thai government has been on the defensive as the public calls for either a fresh election or the prime minister’s resignation.
Few expect the government to survive beyond the first quarter of next year. The army, since then, has been pretty much calling the shots on the border affairs.
It is not clear why Hun Sen chose to turn on the Shinawatra, a long-time family friend. Many theories have been floated, but the one that made the most sense was Thaksin’s refusal to push through the offshore gas deal in the Gulf of Thailand.
The 27,000-square-km of gas-rich area is claimed by both countries. Talk of a win-win arrangement between the two governments kicked off a storm of criticism in Thailand against the Shinawatra family, whom the public accused of standing to gain from the deal. According to one estimate, the disputed area is believed to hold at least US$300bn worth of reserves.
The clashes that erupted last Thursday claimed the lives of more than 38 people on both sides and displaced more than 300,000. In Kuala Lumpur, the two leaders agreed to meet regularly, starting with their regional military commanders. They also agreed on direct communications between the leaders and their defence ministers.
But there is nothing really new about this, as the two countries have gone through this before. The solution to the border conflict between Thailand and Cambodia may not necessarily lie in the bilateral mechanism but in the internal politics of Thailand and Cambodia. Considering the internal crisis that the two countries are going through, mustering the needed political courage to make peace with one another may not be high on the agenda of either country.
The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of STRAT.O.SPHERE CONSULTING PTE LTD.
This article is published under a Creative Commons Licence. Republications minimally require 1) credit authors and their institutions, and 2) credit to STRAT.O.SPHERE CONSULTING PTE LTD and include a link back to either our home page or the article URL.
