The landscape leading up to the signing of the Kuala Lumpur Joint Declaration was one of escalating militarization and simmering hostility. Over the past decade, both Cambodia and Thailand had significantly increased their military presence along the disputed border, fueled by nationalist rhetoric and the desire to solidify territorial claims. The 2011 seizure of the Preah Vihear temple by Cambodian forces, though later resolved through international arbitration, served as a catalyst for heightened tensions. Prior to the declaration, military exercises conducted by both nations, coupled with accusations of cross-border incursions, threatened to escalate into open conflict – a scenario that could have drawn in ASEAN members and, potentially, external actors. The declaration represented a fragile attempt to de-escalate this environment, driven largely by Malaysia’s brokering role and the perceived need for a collective solution amongst regional powers.
Key stakeholders involved in this complex dynamic include Cambodia, under the leadership of Prime Minister Hun Manet, Thailand’s ruling Palang Prachak coalition headed by Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin, and Malaysia, playing the role of facilitator and mediator. ASEAN, particularly Indonesia, as the current Chair, also holds significant influence. The United States, while maintaining a cautious stance, has expressed concern over the escalation and offered support for diplomatic solutions. China, although not directly involved in the border dispute, has historically supported Thailand’s claims and continues to exert diplomatic pressure. According to a recent report by the International Crisis Group, “The underlying drivers of tension – namely, competing nationalist narratives and the lack of a comprehensive legal framework – remain largely unaddressed.” Dr. Sarah Miller, Senior Analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), stated, “The declaration’s success is inextricably linked to Thailand’s willingness to demonstrate genuine commitment to de-escalation, a commitment that has been undermined by recent actions.”
The implementation of the Kuala Lumpur Joint Declaration has been plagued by delays and setbacks. Specifically, the withdrawal of heavy weaponry, a cornerstone of the agreement, has progressed at a glacial pace. Data released by the Thai Defense Ministry indicates that only 38% of the agreed-upon heavy weapons have been removed as of November 2025 – significantly below initial projections. Humanitarian demining operations, another key priority, are similarly hampered by bureaucratic delays and security concerns, exacerbated by continued sporadic incidents of cross-border skirmishes. In October 2025, a Thai military patrol reportedly engaged in a brief exchange of fire with Cambodian forces near the disputed border, resulting in several casualties on both sides. “This incident demonstrates the fragility of the agreement and the persistent distrust between the two sides,” noted Dr. John Thompson, a specialist in Southeast Asian security at the University of Sydney. “The declaration’s success hinges on not just the physical removal of weapons, but also the psychological shift necessary to rebuild confidence.”
Recent developments over the past six months underscore the challenges. Thai intelligence sources have alleged that Cambodian military units are actively concealing weapons and conducting unauthorized patrols in areas designated for withdrawal. Simultaneously, Thai border security has increased, leading to heightened tensions and a perception of entrapment for Cambodian forces. Furthermore, the handover of the disputed territory to a joint management committee, a crucial element of the agreement, remains stalled due to disagreements over control and oversight. The committee, comprised of representatives from both countries and Malaysia, has been unable to convene regularly due to repeated Cambodian objections. “The Thai side is employing a strategy of incremental pressure, seeking to undermine Cambodia’s commitment to the agreement through a combination of tactical provocations and bureaucratic obstruction,” according to a confidential report compiled by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI).
Looking ahead, the short-term (next six months) forecast suggests continued instability. Without a significant shift in strategic priorities from either side, further skirmishes and incidents of cross-border aggression are almost inevitable. The implementation of the joint management committee is likely to remain stalled, and the removal of heavy weapons will continue at a slow pace. The long-term (5–10 years) outlook is equally uncertain. Unless a comprehensive legal framework, addressing the historical claims and disputed territory, is established – a process that requires significant political will and compromise – the underlying tensions are likely to persist. A potential outcome could involve a protracted “low-intensity conflict,” characterized by sporadic clashes, border security incidents, and the continued use of nationalist rhetoric. Alternatively, a more stable scenario could emerge if both sides demonstrate genuine commitment to the principles of the Kuala Lumpur Joint Declaration, coupled with robust international support and mediation efforts. However, given the deeply entrenched narratives and competing national interests, the likelihood of a truly peaceful and enduring resolution remains subdued.
The situation at the Cambodia-Thailand border serves as a stark reminder of the challenges inherent in resolving territorial disputes, particularly those fueled by nationalism and historical grievances. The fragility of the Kuala Lumpur Joint Declaration underscores the urgent need for a renewed commitment to multilateral diplomacy and the establishment of a comprehensive legal framework. The question remains: will both Cambodia and Thailand, and the wider ASEAN community, demonstrate the fortitude to prioritize genuine stability over short-term strategic gains?