Thailand-Cambodia Border Conflict Tests ASEAN’s Centrality – Analysis
The centrality of the ASEAN is under threat. The organisation has long been cited as one of the success stories of regional cooperation. But reality is different and is far from the case. It is a region that spans from democracy to semi-autocracy forms of governments with uneven economic developments. Myanmar’s case is the most glaring, where the military has throttled democracy. Thailand’s governance system remains unstable. The main success story that is cited is that of Vietnam’s success in economic development under the communist rule. But critics sometimes raise cases of human rights violations. The latest threat to the organisation’s centrality comes from the Thailand-Cambodia border fighting that is rooted in a longstanding territorial dispute. A resolution in the near vicinity is not likely in the horizon.
The Thailand-Cambodia border conflict escalated just months after both sides agreed to a ceasefire brokered by US President Donald Trump and Malaysia pushing for peace talks to end their border fighting. President Trump brought the contending sides to the negotiating table by leveraging the importance of the US market for both nations’ exports, threatening to withhold crucial trade privileges. Though Trump afterwards claimed this intervention was an example among several from around the world where his actions led to peace between warring nations, it soon transpired that the ceasefire was fragile. Both Thailand and Cambodia accused each other of launching airstrikes along the border and with each other accusing of violating their sovereignty. In the latest clash, about two dozen people were reported killed in the fighting. More than 100,000 have been displaced on both sides of the border. Cambodia’s Defence Minister accused that a Thai military fighting jet dropped three bombs in the border area, leading to the intensity of the clash.
History of the Border Dispute
The border dispute between the two countries goes back to the early 20th century. Both the countries have a history of enmity over centuries and experience periodic tensions along their land border of more than 800 kilometres (500 miles). The competing territorial claims largely stem from a 1907 map created while Cambodia was under French colonial rule. Thailand contends this to be inaccurate. Many Thais are still angered by a 1962 ruling by the International Court of Justice, which awarded sovereignty of disputed land to Cambodia — a decision reaffirmed in 2013. The disagreement fuelled several armed clashes between 2008 and 2011.
The preliminary pact was followed by a more detailed October agreement. Its terms called for coordination of de-mining operations, removal of heavy weapons and equipment from the border, implementation of measures to restore mutual trust, and desisting from harmful rhetoric and the dissemination of false information. None of these actions was implemented in full, if at all.
Both nations continued fighting a bitter propaganda war, and there were occasional minor outbreaks of cross-border violence, before the latest escalation. A major Cambodian complaint has been that Thailand continues to hold 18 troops taken prisoner. Thailand accuses Cambodia of laying new land mines in the areas under dispute that maimed Thai soldiers. Cambodia says the mines are left over from decades of civil war that ended in 1999. Thailand used the failure to implement the ceasefire terms as an excuse not to promptly release the Cambodian prisoners, even though the October agreement urged it to do so “as a demonstration of Thailand’s desire to promote confidence and trust.”
What are the terms on which Trump wanted to leverage to strike the ceasefire deal? Trump knew that the conflict impacted diplomacy, trade and tourism. Trump was aware that Thailand is one of Washington’s closest and most longstanding allies. The country also holds a huge military advantage, best demonstrated by its mostly unchallenged ability to use air power.
After the Trump-backed ceasefire ended following ignition of border clashes, Thailand drew a clear line: tariffs must not be used to force peace with Cambodia. Bangkok’s resistance is a test for Trump’s tariff play, but the tariff has always been a blunt instrument.
But Cambodia is not diplomatically sitting either. It had been trying to strengthen its hand diplomatically. It was among the first countries to strongly support a Nobel Peace Prize nomination for Trump, even bringing out crowds to demonstrate in favour of that. It is well known that despite disrupting world trade and launching a massive tariff war with almost all countries in the world in pursuance of his MAGA mission, Trump in his quest for the Nobel Peace Prize claimed to mediate successfully, mostly falsely, in a number of conflicts, thereby alienating some countries in the process. Cambodia also employed an intensive propaganda campaign on social media, portraying itself as the underdog and issued frequent unverifiable accusations about Thai actions. That nationalistic sabre-rattling was ubiquitous on both sides could not be missed.
There is a different reason behind Washington’s stance on peace diplomacy. For Washington, it appears to be trying to actively build better relations with Cambodia to woo it away from its close relationship with China. Such a stance has bred resentment in Thailand. Cambodia has made further progress toward finalising a trade deal with Washington than has Thailand, whose economy is much bigger and more complex. The truism is that potential economic consequences go beyond trade.
Impact on tourism
The renewed fighting came just as the winter tourism season is hitting its peak. Tourists are deterred to travel amid the tensions. Tourism is a major earner for both nations, which are still trying to recover from the battering the industry took during the coronavirus pandemic. Besides, there is a cultural competition factor as well. The mutual acrimony between the two over overlapping border claims, causing ill-feelings, is deep-rooted. This stems from a historic cultural enmity rooted centuries ago, when both were large and competing empires.
Those bad feelings lingered till modern times as Cambodia’s development, hindered by French colonialism and, in the 1970s, the brutal rule of the communist Khmer Rouge, fell well behind Thailand. Because of this historical acrimony, both have fought also over claims on cultural products ranging from boxing, mask dancing, traditional clothing and food.
In his attempts to attain glory, Trump has been leveraging tariff to resolve conflict. But that route is unlikely to succeed as regional dynamics are always different. Thailand’s Foreign Minister Sihasak Phuangketkeow has emphasised that resolving the border conflict should remain separate from the ongoing trade negotiations. In October, the US and Thailand announced a reciprocal trade framework that maintains a 19% tariff on Thai products while identifying areas for potential tariff cuts.
There is yet another dimension, internal political factor in Thailand which influences the current border hostilities with Cambodia. The current hostilities occurred as Thai Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul – who took power in September after his predecessor was ousted over the border issue – prepares to dissolve parliament and hold snap elections in March. Anutin has already faced criticism over his government’s slow response to deadly floods in the south, threatening to derail the opposition party’s ambitions. Thus higher tariffs remain a risk and Anutin is likely to invoke nationalist sentiment by taking a tougher stance on trade and separating it from the border dispute with Cambodia. Anutin is aware that when he signed the ceasefire agreement brokered by Trump and Malaysia, he faced sharp criticism from the nationalistic elements. Thus it transpires that Anutin is unlikely to toe the Trump line for his political survival.
Anutin is equally aware that Thais overwhelmingly trust the military, which has been most strident in its response to Cambodia over the political leadership. The Thai leadership seems prepared to withstand a tariff blowback but hopes its military superiority come to its rescue and keep the conflict from escalation. As it transpired, the border dispute between Thailand and Cambodia do not likely to be resolved anytime soon. Thus the much hyped centrality of the ASEAN as a successful organisation is destined to remain a will-o-the-wisp.
