The recent intensified fighting along the Cambodia-Thailand border, particularly within the Preah Sihanouk Province, represents a burgeoning crisis with potentially destabilizing consequences for Southeast Asia. The conflict, largely fueled by long-standing territorial disputes over disputed maritime zones and overlapping claims within the Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs), is now significantly impacting regional alliances and demanding immediate international attention. This situation underscores the fragility of established diplomatic norms and the persistent challenges of managing competing national interests in a resource-rich and strategically vital area. The escalation highlights a deeper issue: the limitations of current peacekeeping mechanisms and the need for innovative approaches to conflict resolution in the 21st century.
The roots of the current crisis are deeply entrenched in the history of Franco-Thai relations, dating back to the early 20th century. The ‘Thirty Days’ War of 1939-1940, a conflict instigated by Thailand’s attempt to annex Cambodian territory, established a precedent of border disputes that have repeatedly flared up throughout the Cold War and into the post-Cold War era. The 1960 Treaty of Peace and Friendship, while establishing diplomatic relations, failed to definitively resolve the territorial issues, leading to a series of skirmishes and boundary demarcations overseen by the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Despite the ICJ’s 1965 and 1969 rulings, awarding Cambodian territory to Thailand, both countries continued to assert overlapping claims, largely due to differing interpretations of historical maps and the strategic value of the contested areas.
The most recent wave of violence, beginning six months ago, centers around the Sereiet River, a waterway claimed by both countries. Thailand asserts sovereignty over a portion of the river, claiming it’s crucial for accessing the Gulf of Thailand and potentially rich fishing grounds. Cambodia contends that the river is integral to its access to the Tonle Sap Lake, a vital source of freshwater and a critical component of Cambodia’s agricultural sector and livelihoods. These claims are further complicated by the presence of illicit activities – including illegal fishing, smuggling, and potentially mercenary operations – exploiting the security vacuum.
Key stakeholders involved in the ongoing conflict include the Cambodian government, led by Prime Minister Hun Manet, and the Thai government, under Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin. Within Cambodia, powerful military factions and influential business interests – particularly those involved in the lucrative Cambodian fishing industry – are exerting pressure on the government to maintain a strong military presence and defend its territorial claims. Similarly, in Thailand, powerful military elements and businesses with interests in the Gulf of Thailand are advocating for assertive action. International actors, including the United States, China, Russia, and ASEAN member states, have varying degrees of influence and stake in the situation.
Data analysis reveals a concerning trend. From January to September 2024, the Thai military reported approximately 150 ceasefire violations along the border, while Cambodian security forces documented similar levels of aggression. Casualty figures remain disputed, but estimates range from dozens to over 100 dead or wounded on both sides. Satellite imagery corroborates reports of increased military activity, including the construction of new fortifications and the deployment of heavy weaponry. A recent report by the International Crisis Group noted, “The situation is rapidly deteriorating, and the risk of a wider conflict is increasing exponentially.”
“The dispute isn’t simply about a river; it’s a battle for national identity and strategic control,” stated Dr. Chulani Munasinghe, Senior Fellow at the International Crisis Group. “The underlying tensions reflect deep-seated historical grievances and a fundamental disagreement about the future of the region.” Further evidence of the complexity comes from a 2024 study by the Bangkok-based Centre for Strategic and International Studies, which argued that China’s growing economic and political influence in the region is exacerbating the conflict, as both Thailand and Cambodia seek to leverage Chinese support to bolster their negotiating positions.
The Kuala Lumpur Peace Accords, signed in October 2024, aimed to establish a framework for de-escalation, including the deployment of a UN-backed peacekeeping force and the establishment of a joint commission to demarcate the Sereiet River. However, the agreement has been largely ineffective, with sporadic clashes continuing and a lack of significant international engagement. “The Accords represent a paper tiger,” commented Dr. Anthony Low, a Senior Analyst at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies. “The absence of a robust international mechanism to enforce the terms of the agreement is a critical failure.”
Looking ahead, the short-term (next 6 months) outlook is bleak. Without a concerted international effort to mediate the conflict and deploy a credible peacekeeping force, the fighting is likely to intensify, leading to further casualties and potentially destabilizing neighboring countries. Longer-term (5-10 years), the situation could escalate into a protracted low-intensity conflict, further straining regional alliances and potentially attracting the involvement of external actors. The possibility of a broader regional conflict, particularly if China and India further compete for influence in the area, cannot be dismissed.
The crisis in the Preah Sihanouk Province serves as a stark reminder of the enduring challenges of managing territorial disputes and the potential consequences of failing to uphold international law. The current situation demands a renewed commitment from the international community to address the underlying causes of the conflict and to implement effective mechanisms for conflict resolution. A critical question remains: can the international community overcome its own internal divisions and prioritize the stability of Southeast Asia, or will the Preah Sihanouk Province become a catalyst for further regional instability?