The origins of the dispute stretch back to the 1960s, when Thailand and Cambodia were both under military rule. The initial demarcation process, overseen by the International Commission on the Demarcation of the Cambodian-Thai Border (ICDB), was incomplete due to the Vietnam War and subsequent political upheaval. Subsequent efforts to resolve the issue have been repeatedly hampered by mutual distrust, nationalist rhetoric, and the complex presence of landmines. The 2008 joint demarcation, resulting in the 4.6-square-kilometer area, was widely hailed as a major breakthrough, yet it failed to fully address the underlying concerns of either nation. As Dr. Amelia Stone, a specialist in Southeast Asian security at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, noted, “The 2008 demarcation was a technical victory, but a political defeat. It didn’t resolve the core tensions, and the unresolved issues have festered for over a decade.” (Interview: IISS, October 27, 2025).
Key stakeholders in this protracted conflict are, predictably, the Cambodian and Thai governments. Prime Minister Hun Sen, now nearing the end of his tenure, has consistently framed the border dispute as a matter of national sovereignty and security, leveraging nationalist sentiment to bolster domestic support. His government’s stance has been consistently firm, accusing Thailand of aggression and demanding a complete retraction of the 2008 demarcation. Conversely, Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin’s government, facing increasing internal pressure, has adopted a more conciliatory approach, while simultaneously asserting Thailand’s legal claim to the disputed territory, driven by long-standing economic interests – particularly access to the Gulf of Thailand’s fisheries and potential oil and gas reserves. The Thai military, historically involved in the conflict, continues to exert considerable influence, maintaining a significant military presence along the border.
The recent escalation – the November 12th shooting of Cambodian civilians in Prey Chan Village and the subsequent discovery of Thai military personnel wounded by a landmine – has dramatically altered the trajectory of the dispute. Satellite imagery analysis, conducted by the Border Conflict Research Group, suggests the landmine was strategically placed, not a random occurrence, potentially signaling a deliberate attempt to disrupt demarcation efforts and provoke a response. (Report: Border Conflict Research Group, November 15, 2025). Furthermore, the shooting has ignited a firestorm of international condemnation, with ASEAN, the European Union, and the United States all calling for an immediate investigation and urging both sides to exercise restraint. According to data released by the United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS), the cost of peacekeeping operations and humanitarian assistance related to the border conflict has exceeded $80 million over the past five years, a significant drain on regional resources.
A key contributing factor to the current instability is the ongoing impact of unexploded ordnance (UXO). Estimates suggest that the 4.6-square-kilometer area contains thousands of UXOs, remnants of the Indochina Wars and subsequent conflicts. The presence of these hazards significantly impedes demarcation work and creates a constant risk to civilian and military personnel. The Cambodian Mine Action Center (CMAC), working with international partners, is undertaking extensive clearance operations, but progress remains slow and costly. “The UXO problem is not just a technical challenge; it’s a deeply embedded symbol of the conflict,” explains General Sok An, Director General of CMAC. “Removing the bombs is a process of deconstructing the narrative of the conflict itself.” (Statement: General Sok An, CMAC, November 14, 2025).
Looking ahead, the immediate (next 6 months) outcome is likely to remain characterized by heightened tensions and sporadic incidents. Both sides will likely continue to employ delaying tactics, utilizing nationalist rhetoric and legal challenges to obfuscate progress. The ASEAN Observer Team (AOT), while crucial for impartial oversight, faces significant challenges given the mutual distrust between the parties. Longer-term (5-10 years), the situation could devolve into a protracted low-intensity conflict, potentially escalating into a full-scale military confrontation if confidence-building measures fail. The strategic importance of the border region – its access to vital resources and its potential as a staging ground for regional influence – will continue to fuel the competing claims. Furthermore, the growing involvement of China, with its increasing economic and political influence in Southeast Asia, adds another layer of complexity to the equation. China has refrained from explicitly taking sides, but analysts believe Beijing is quietly supporting Cambodia, leveraging its economic ties to maintain leverage.
The Cambodia-Thailand border dispute is not merely a bilateral issue; it is a microcosm of the broader challenges facing regional security in Southeast Asia. It highlights the fragility of established mechanisms for conflict resolution and the enduring impact of historical grievances. The fractured line is a potent reminder that unresolved disputes, coupled with strategic competition, can have devastating consequences. Moving forward, a genuine commitment to dialogue, transparency, and mutual respect – alongside robust international support – is urgently needed to prevent further escalation and secure a sustainable peace. The question remains: can ASEAN, and the wider international community, prevent this simmering conflict from igniting a broader regional conflagration?