The conflict’s roots extend back to the 1960s, when Cambodia and Thailand engaged in a protracted, low-intensity conflict over the Preah Vihear temple, located near the border. Despite the 1962 treaty, which formally recognized Cambodia’s sovereignty over the area, the issue remained a constant source of friction. Subsequent negotiations, punctuated by violence and punctuated by mutual distrust, have failed to deliver a lasting resolution. “The border dispute is a persistent malignancy,” noted Dr. Kenichi Tanaka, Senior Fellow at the ISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute in Singapore. “It’s not simply about territory; it’s about national identity, historical narratives, and the legitimacy of claims.”
Key stakeholders in this volatile situation include the Cambodian government under Prime Minister Sokhon, the Thai government led by Prime Minister Thanath Pleng, and a diverse group of international actors. Cambodia, relying heavily on ASEAN for mediation, seeks to protect its territorial integrity and assert its national interests, a position mirrored by the significant Khmer diaspora community within Thailand. Thailand, citing security concerns and historical grievances, has repeatedly accused Cambodian forces of facilitating illegal immigration and harboring insurgent groups. “Thailand’s actions are driven by a perceived need to maintain control over a porous border,” explained Dr. Anya Sharma, a specialist in Southeast Asian security at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI). “This is further complicated by the ongoing instability within Thailand’s southern provinces.”
The immediate events leading to the escalation are critical. On November 10th, 2025, a Thai-claimed explosion near a Cambodian military outpost triggered a swift Thai military response. Subsequently, Thai forces launched assaults on Cambodian villages in Banteay Meanchey province and intensified their presence near disputed Boundary Pillars 52-59. The Thai government’s justification for the offensive – alleging that Cambodian forces were deliberately deploying landmines – remains contested. The Kuala Lumpur Joint Declaration, signed in October 2025, which called for a ceasefire and the resumption of demarcation work, appears to have been disregarded. This disregard for prior agreements is compounding tensions.
The use of heavy weaponry by Thai forces – including tanks, artillery, and fighter jets – dramatically increases the potential for civilian casualties and broader conflict. The international community, including ASEAN member states, has expressed grave concern and called for restraint. The ASEAN Interim Observer Team (IOT) and the ASEAN Observer Team (AOT) have been deployed to verify Cambodia’s adherence to the ceasefire. However, their limited mandate and the continued aggression from Thailand underscore the fragility of the situation. “The lack of a robust enforcement mechanism within ASEAN is a major weakness,” stated Dr. David Lee, a political analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “ASEAN’s principle of non-interference is often invoked to justify inaction, but in this case, the consequences of inaction are far greater.”
Short-term outcomes over the next six months are likely to involve further localized clashes, a deepening humanitarian crisis, and a continued failure of diplomatic efforts. The potential for a wider regional conflict is a serious concern, particularly given Thailand’s considerable military capabilities. Long-term, the conflict could lead to a permanent fracturing of ASEAN unity, further eroding the organization’s credibility as a guarantor of regional peace. Moreover, the dispute could embolden separatist movements in Thailand’s southern provinces, providing a rallying cry for further instability. The protracted nature of the conflict also risks further complicating Cambodia’s economic development, particularly its tourism sector.
Cambodia’s strategic focus will likely be on securing international support, particularly from countries within the Global South, and on leveraging ASEAN’s influence to pressure Thailand to de-escalate. Thailand, meanwhile, will likely continue to maintain a military presence along the border, arguing that it is necessary to maintain order and protect its national interests. The coming months will undoubtedly test the resilience of ASEAN and the effectiveness of international diplomacy. The situation demands a prompt and concerted effort to address the underlying issues, promote dialogue, and uphold the principles of international law and respect for sovereignty. The outcome rests heavily on the willingness of both sides to prioritize de-escalation and to engage in genuine negotiations, guided by the shared goal of a peaceful and prosperous future for the region.