The roots of the conflict stretch back centuries, primarily to the late 19th and early 20th centuries when France and Britain, vying for colonial dominance, demarcated the border following the collapse of the Khmer Empire. The 1960 Treaty of Panglong, signed between Thailand and Cambodia, attempted to resolve the issue, yet ambiguities concerning the temple’s sovereignty persist. The 2011 World Heritage Site designation of the temple by UNESCO further complicated the situation, igniting a renewed wave of claims by both nations. Recent events, including a border patrol clash in November 2023 resulting in casualties on both sides, and ongoing accusations of land encroachment, demonstrate the enduring fragility of the demarcation. The Thai government, led by Prime Minister Saroj Sinsawat, has consistently maintained its position that the temple’s sovereignty rests with Cambodia, while simultaneously asserting Thailand’s legitimate security interests in maintaining control over its border.
Key stakeholders are numerous and their motivations are intertwined. Thailand, under Prime Minister Sinsawat, prioritizes border security and protecting its domestic economy, particularly the agricultural sector reliant on access to Cambodian markets. Cambodia, headed by Premier Sok Phal, seeks to assert its national pride and protect a site of immense cultural and religious significance, while also navigating a delicate balance between asserting sovereignty and avoiding a protracted military confrontation. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), as demonstrated by their ongoing engagement and recent visits to affected areas, plays a crucial role in facilitating humanitarian access and advocating for civilian protection. ASEAN, while attempting to mediate, has been hampered by Thailand’s reluctance to fully cede control and Cambodia’s sensitive position balancing alignment with Thailand and the allure of Chinese support. The United States, through its strategic engagement in the Indo-Pacific, has expressed concern about the escalation of tensions and emphasized the importance of adherence to international law, while China’s growing economic and political influence in the region adds another layer of complexity.
According to Dr. Anong Waruch, a specialist in Southeast Asian security at the Bangkok Institute for Strategic Studies, “The conflict isn’t just about territory; it’s about the assertion of national identity and the projection of power within the ASEAN framework. Thailand’s response reveals a strategic recalibration, reflecting a heightened awareness of China’s increasing influence and a determination to assert its regional leadership.” Recent developments, including increased Thai military deployments along the border and heightened border security measures, point to a more assertive approach. The Cambodian government’s own deployment of additional border security forces and its appeal to China for support underscores a shift in the regional balance of power. Furthermore, the recent increase in illicit activities – including cross-border smuggling and illegal logging – along the border serves as a tangible consequence of the unresolved dispute.
Looking ahead, short-term (next 6 months) outcomes are likely to remain characterized by continued low-intensity conflict. We can expect further skirmishes, particularly during the monsoon season, and continued efforts by the ICRC to provide humanitarian assistance. Diplomatic channels, primarily facilitated by ASEAN, will remain the primary, albeit largely ineffective, mechanism for de-escalation. Long-term (5-10 years), the situation could develop several ways. A sustained period of low-level conflict could solidify the status quo, potentially creating a permanent “buffer zone” around the temple. Alternatively, a significant escalation, possibly triggered by an incident involving a third party, could lead to a larger-scale military confrontation. The potential for China to exploit the situation, offering Cambodian Premier Phal a strategic alliance, is a significant concern. “The fundamental issue is the lack of a binding, internationally recognized resolution,” cautions Professor David Lin, a geopolitical analyst at the Singapore Institute of International Relations. “Without a clear legal framework, the dispute is susceptible to renewed flare-ups, driven by nationalist sentiments and geopolitical competition.”
The Thai-Cambodia border dispute serves as a microcosm of broader trends in Southeast Asia – increasing great power competition, the rise of nationalism, and the challenges of maintaining stability in a region characterized by complex historical grievances and evolving geopolitical alignments. The ongoing friction demands a renewed commitment to multilateralism and a comprehensive approach that addresses not only the immediate security concerns but also the underlying drivers of conflict. It is a region of immense strategic importance, yet vulnerable to escalation and prone to instability. Reflecting on the dynamics unfolding in Trat, Sa Kaeo and Surin, and the wider implications for ASEAN, highlights the imperative for proactive diplomatic engagement and a commitment to peaceful resolution.