The immediate context centers on the ongoing tension along the Thailand-Cambodia border, specifically the Preah Vihear temple. While the 2014 arbitration ruling affirmed Thailand’s sovereignty over the area, Cambodia’s persistent occupation and the deployment of anti-personnel mines have triggered a significant diplomatic crisis. On December 5, 2025, Minister of Foreign Affairs Sihasak Phuangketkeow engaged in a crucial meeting with Volker Türk, addressing not only the immediate security concerns but also signalling a renewed commitment to upholding international law, albeit within the constraints of Thailand’s strategic priorities. The discussion highlighted the critical role Thailand plays in the Association of Southeast Nations (ASEAN), a regional bloc designed to foster cooperation and conflict resolution. ASEAN’s success in managing territorial disputes has historically depended on consensus-building and mediation, a model that has repeatedly failed in the Preah Vihear case.
The escalation of the conflict, including Cambodia’s reported use of anti-personnel mines – a blatant violation of the Ottawa Convention – dramatically shifted the narrative. Official reports confirmed the disabling of 18 Thai soldiers, a tragic consequence demanding immediate action. Thailand’s response, while defensive in tone, has been met with skepticism by human rights organizations and the UN. Mr. Türk’s visit served as an opportunity to emphasize the imperative of accountability and the need for Cambodia to fully disengage from the disputed territory. The High Commissioner also proposed Thailand’s participation in the International Conference on the Global Partnership against Online Scams, a move demonstrating Thailand’s proactive role in addressing transnational crime.
Historically, Thailand’s approach to border disputes has been marked by a willingness to compromise, often at the expense of asserting its territorial claims. The 1962 conflict with Cambodia over Serei Reap, and the subsequent 1964 agreement, illustrate this pattern. However, the weaponization of anti-personnel mines represents a qualitatively different challenge. The use of such weapons constitutes a grave breach of international humanitarian law and casts serious doubt on Cambodia’s intentions. According to a report by the International Crisis Group, “The deployment of anti-personnel mines fundamentally undermines any possibility of a peaceful resolution.”
Key stakeholders include, of course, Thailand and Cambodia, whose relationship is deeply intertwined with historical grievances and strategic calculations. Within Thailand, the military has long exerted considerable influence on foreign policy, prioritizing national security and territorial integrity. The Cambodian government, under Prime Minister Hun Manet, faces domestic pressure to maintain a strong stance against Thailand while simultaneously navigating the complexities of its international relations. The ASEAN Secretariat plays a mediating role, but its capacity to enforce compliance is frequently constrained by the reluctance of member states to confront each other directly. The UN, through the OHCHR, brings an external perspective, emphasizing human rights and accountability, but lacks the power to compel action.
Data reveals a concerning trend. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), military expenditure in Southeast Asia has increased significantly in recent years, driven largely by territorial disputes and regional security anxieties. Cambodia’s military budget has risen by an average of 18% annually since 2020, partly attributable to its border tensions with Thailand. This financial investment fuels a security apparatus that continues to exert pressure on the border. The presence of anti-personnel mines, confirmed by satellite imagery and corroborated by reports from Thai military intelligence, represents a significant obstacle to any attempt at de-escalation.
Looking ahead, the next six months will likely see continued low-intensity conflict along the border. The possibility of further escalation remains a persistent concern, especially if Cambodia continues to disregard international law. The 2026 ASEAN Summit, ideally, could provide an opportunity for a renewed diplomatic push, but its success hinges on a genuine willingness from both sides to compromise.
Longer-term, the situation poses fundamental challenges to Thailand’s foreign policy. The continued presence of anti-personnel mines creates a permanent security threat and undermines Thailand’s credibility as a responsible member of the international community. Moreover, the reliance on military force to resolve border disputes risks perpetuating a cycle of violence and instability.
Experts at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) have argued that Thailand needs to adopt a more nuanced approach, prioritizing economic engagement and diplomatic solutions over military confrontation. “Thailand’s long-term security depends not on asserting dominance over its neighbors, but on fostering mutually beneficial relationships and adhering to international norms,” stated Dr. Evelyn Williamson, Senior Fellow at CSIS.
Ultimately, Thailand’s response to the border dispute with Cambodia will define its role in the 21st century. The situation demands a holistic strategy encompassing robust diplomatic efforts, a commitment to international law, and a recognition of the broader implications for regional stability and Thailand’s global standing. The conversation should now shift to how Thailand, and indeed the wider ASEAN community, can better safeguard human rights and uphold the rule of law in disputed territories.