The immediate catalyst for the current situation – a deadly border clash in early October 2025 – stemmed from long-standing territorial disputes centered around the Preah Vihear Temple, a UNESCO World Heritage site. However, the conflict’s depth goes far beyond a simple territorial dispute. Decades of overlapping claims, coupled with differing interpretations of historical records and national narratives, have created a volatile environment. Thailand’s perspective, rooted in historical claims and perceived security concerns, contrasts sharply with Cambodia’s assertion of sovereignty and the temple’s religious significance. This difference in interpretation is not solely a matter of geography; it is inextricably linked to national identity and perceptions of regional power.
Historically, Thailand has been acutely sensitive to perceived threats to its security, particularly from its larger neighbor to the north. The 1960s, with the Vietnam War, cemented a tradition of cautious engagement with China, despite tacit support for the US during the conflict. This history has shaped Thailand’s approach to regional security, fostering a desire for strategic autonomy and a wary relationship with powers perceived as potentially hegemonic. The 20th century saw Thailand leveraging China’s support to counter perceived US influence in Southeast Asia. This legacy, coupled with the economic opportunities presented by China’s rise, created a natural, if cautiously pursued, alignment.
Key stakeholders are multifaceted. Cambodia, under Prime Minister Hun Manet, is seeking to assert its sovereignty and leverage China’s support to counterbalance perceived Thai influence within ASEAN. China’s role is arguably the most transformative. Beijing’s growing economic and military power, coupled with its expanding diplomatic footprint, is creating significant strategic leverage in Southeast Asia. Cambodia has become a key component of China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), receiving substantial investment and military assistance. Thailand, while also participating in the BRI, is understandably protective of its strategic autonomy and wary of becoming overly reliant on Beijing. ASEAN, as a mediating body, faces the difficult task of facilitating dialogue and preventing escalation. The United States, while maintaining traditional alliances with Thailand and Cambodia, has struggled to effectively respond to the changing dynamics, constrained by its own strategic priorities and a perceived reluctance to directly challenge China’s influence.
Data from the International Crisis Group highlights a significant increase in military spending by both Thailand and Cambodia over the past decade, reflecting a growing regional security competition. Military expenditure in Thailand rose by 18% in 2024, primarily due to increased investments in border security and modernization. Cambodia’s military spending increased by 22%, largely attributed to Chinese support. The RAND Corporation’s analyses suggest a high probability of localized conflict escalating if diplomatic efforts fail. Furthermore, the BRI’s impact in the region is considerable, with China’s investment reshaping the economic landscape and potentially exacerbating existing tensions.
As noted by Dr. Ankit S. Sharma, Senior Fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, “The Cambodia-Thailand conflict represents a microcosm of a larger trend: the rise of China as a regional power and the subsequent re-ordering of alliances in Southeast Asia.” He further argued, “Thailand’s strategic challenge is to manage this shift without sacrificing its influence within ASEAN, or alienating key partners.”
Looking ahead, the short-term (next six months) will likely see continued diplomatic efforts mediated by ASEAN, with China playing a crucial role in facilitating dialogue. The risk of further skirmishes remains high, particularly if political instability within either country exacerbates the tensions. In the longer term (5-10 years), the evolution of the Cambodia-Thailand relationship will profoundly impact the broader regional security architecture. A continued stalemate could lead to a fragmented Southeast Asia, with Thailand increasingly reliant on China for security and economic support. Alternatively, a sustained commitment to multilateralism and ASEAN-led conflict resolution could create a more stable and prosperous region.
The situation presents a significant test for Thailand’s foreign policy. Maintaining its strategic independence while managing China’s influence – and addressing the underlying grievances related to the Preah Vihear Temple – will require a skillful, long-term strategy. Ultimately, the resolution of this conflict hinges not just on military diplomacy, but on a fundamental re-evaluation of regional security norms and a renewed commitment to inclusive, multilateral governance. This ongoing tension demands a critical consideration of the evolving dynamics of power in Southeast Asia.