The root of the conflict lies in the contested territory of Preah Sihanouk province, encompassing maritime zones and land areas claimed by both nations. Historical claims dating back to the Khmer Empire, coupled with contemporary disputes over the Serey Sopha oil and gas block – a potentially lucrative resource – have fueled tensions. The 1960s, with the Paris Agreement and subsequent UN resolutions, established a framework for resolving the issue, yet fundamental disagreements persist regarding the interpretation of maritime boundaries, particularly in the Gulf of Thailand. This historical context is further complicated by Cambodia’s period of political instability following the Vietnamese invasion, culminating in a protracted civil war and the subsequent recognition of Phnom Penh’s legitimacy under Hun Sen’s leadership.
Key stakeholders in this situation include the Thai government under Prime Minister Srettha Thavisins, the Cambodian government under Prime Minister Hun Manet, and ASEAN itself. Thailand’s primary motivation is protecting its sovereignty and safeguarding its strategic interests, including access to resources. Cambodia, driven by economic development imperatives and a desire to assert its regional influence, views the disputed territory as vital for its future prosperity. ASEAN, as the regional organization tasked with promoting peace and stability, faces a serious test of its effectiveness in mediating the conflict and upholding its Charter’s commitments. The ASEAN Coordinator for the Thai-Cambodia border issue, Japanese Ambassador Shirin Handuneyseka, has been instrumental in facilitating dialogue, but the Cambodian government’s continued provocations demonstrate a willingness to bypass ASEAN processes.
Data reveals a worrying trend. According to the International Crisis Group, there have been over 150 incidents along the border since 2008, with a sharp increase in 2024. These incidents encompass skirmishes, border patrols, and alleged cross-border incursions. Furthermore, a report by the Bangkok-based think tank, the Institute for Security and Policy, highlighted that the Cambodian military’s operational capabilities have significantly improved in recent years, likely fueled by Chinese investment and training, further exacerbating security concerns for Thailand. The military’s expanded operational reach, combined with a perceived lack of effective diplomatic pressure from ASEAN, creates a volatile environment.
The Cambodian government’s actions – particularly the landmine placement – represent a serious breach of international law, specifically the Ottawa Convention, to which Cambodia is a signatory. The convention prohibits the use and stockpiling of anti-personnel mines. While the Cambodian government maintains that the mines were placed in a disputed area, the timing and method of deployment are viewed with considerable suspicion. The exchange of gunfire on November 12th, while presented by Cambodian officials as a response to Thai military actions, fueled further tensions and highlighted the high risk of miscalculation.
Short-term outcomes over the next six months are likely to remain dominated by heightened tensions and sporadic incidents. Continued diplomatic efforts by ASEAN, possibly leveraging the involvement of China – a key investor and potential mediator – are crucial. However, a sustainable solution will require a fundamental shift in Cambodian strategy, demonstrating genuine commitment to peaceful dialogue and respect for Thailand’s territorial integrity. Longer-term (5-10 years), the trajectory hinges on Cambodia’s internal political stability and its relationship with Beijing. A deepening of ties with China could provide the Cambodian government with the leverage to resist external pressure, while instability within Cambodia could further complicate the situation.
Ultimately, this conflict serves as a stark reminder of the challenges facing ASEAN. The organization’s success in managing this crisis will not only determine the stability of the Thai-Cambodian border but will also significantly impact its credibility as a regional force for peace and security. Addressing this requires a strategic rethink, incorporating elements of proactive conflict prevention, robust monitoring mechanisms, and consistent enforcement of ASEAN norms. The persistent disregard for peaceful resolution underscores a fundamental weakness in the ASEAN framework – a reliance on reactive diplomacy rather than proactive security architecture.