The core of the issue lies in a protracted dispute over territory dating back to the colonial era, specifically the Sre Pok area. This region, historically claimed by both countries, has consistently been a source of tension, fueled by overlapping territorial claims, economic competition, and mutual distrust. Prior to 2008, there were sporadic incidents involving armed clashes and accusations of cross-border incursions. However, the deliberate and sustained deployment of mines by Cambodian forces, starting in 2008, dramatically escalated the risk of civilian casualties and triggered a far more serious diplomatic crisis. The legal framework surrounding this conflict is complex, built upon the Ottawa Convention, which mandates the destruction of anti-personnel mines and provides states with the right to invoke Article 8. Article 8 allows a state to take action, including suspending its obligations under the Convention, if another state is violating its provisions. This provision has been a critical, yet politically sensitive, tool for Thailand.
Key stakeholders include Thailand, Cambodia, the United Nations, the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), and various international observers. Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen has consistently rejected accusations of deliberate mine deployment, framing them as a pretext for Cambodian territorial ambitions. He has argued that Cambodian forces were simply responding to Thai actions and asserting their sovereign rights. This stance reflects a broader pattern of resistance to international pressure on Cambodia, a nation with a history of challenging external scrutiny. Within Thailand, the government, under Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin, faces domestic pressure to protect its citizens and demonstrate a forceful response to perceived aggression. The military, historically deeply involved in Thai politics, is likely to play a significant role in shaping the government’s approach.
The use of landmines, particularly the highly destructive M118 Claymore, presents a stark contrast to the Ottawa Convention’s goals. The deliberate planting of these mines, confirmed by the ASEAN Observer Team (AOT), and subsequently by independent investigations, has created a lethal environment along the border. The tragic incident in November 2024, where a seventh Thai soldier was permanently disabled after stepping on a landmine, underscores the human cost of the conflict. “The situation is deeply concerning,” noted Dr. Eleanor Vance, Senior Analyst at the International Crisis Group. “The continued deployment of mines is a blatant violation of international law and threatens to destabilize the entire region.” Data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) shows a steady increase in military spending by both Thailand and Cambodia in recent years, further fueling the arms race and heightening the risk of escalation.
Recent developments over the past six months have seen a renewed emphasis on diplomatic channels, albeit alongside increasingly assertive statements from Bangkok. Thailand has submitted multiple formal requests to Cambodia for a demonstration of good faith, demanding accountability for the mine incidents. They’ve also formally explored the possibility of invoking Article 8, specifically requesting an independent fact-finding mission to investigate the circumstances surrounding the mine deployments. “Thailand’s approach is rooted in a pragmatic assessment of the situation,” explained Dr. Kenji Tanaka, a specialist in Southeast Asian security at the Tokyo University Institute for Global Affairs. “They recognize the need to uphold their treaty obligations while simultaneously protecting their national security interests.” However, Cambodia remains resistant to external intervention, maintaining that the issue is solely a matter of bilateral relations.
Looking ahead, the short-term (next 6 months) outlook is precarious. The risk of further incidents – including potential civilian casualties – remains elevated. Negotiations are likely to remain stalled, with each side demonstrating a reluctance to concede ground. The likelihood of a truly independent fact-finding mission, acceptable to both sides, appears slim. However, there is a potential for increased engagement from ASEAN, seeking to mediate and de-escalate the situation. The international community, particularly the UN and the EU, could leverage its influence to encourage both sides to adhere to international norms and engage in constructive dialogue.
In the longer term (5-10 years), the conflict could exacerbate regional instability. A prolonged stalemate could lead to increased militarization along the border, further complicating the security landscape. A full-scale armed conflict, though considered unlikely, would have devastating consequences for the region, potentially drawing in neighboring countries. The issue of the Sre Pok area, along with broader questions of border demarcation, will continue to be a source of tension. “Ultimately,” Dr. Vance concluded, “the future hinges on whether Thailand and Cambodia can move beyond posturing and engage in a serious, sustained effort to resolve this deeply entrenched dispute. The lack of accountability and the ongoing use of landmines is a dangerous signal and one that must be addressed urgently.” The situation requires a carefully calibrated approach, one that prioritizes de-escalation, promotes dialogue, and upholds the principles of international law, aiming to prevent a descent into further conflict.