By Alex Maestre

Four months ago, a significant event between two nations with a long history of conflict began. In just five days, 32-33 people died, 130 more were injured, and over 168,000 civilians were displaced before the international community called an immediate ceasefire between the Kingdom of Thailand and Cambodia. Under US pressure (Donald Trump threatening to place high tariffs on both countries) and ASEAN members (like Malaysia) forced the two into an uneasy ceasefire.

​

But then on 12 November 2025, Thailand pointed its finger at Cambodia for setting up landmines, which caused one of its military personnel severe injuries. The following month, Cambodia’s defense minister accuses Thailand of pulling the trigger first over an attack within the temple areas where the conflict first started (2008, 2011, and now 2025) in Preah Vihear Province. The conflict once again turns hot with an even deadlier impact.

​

​

Over half a million were displaced again: students, older people, and many ordinary citizens on both sides. More than a dozen people have been reported dead and injured, with the numbers increasing every single day.

​

To provide you with a better understanding of this. You would need to first look into the historical rivalry between Thailand and Cambodia. But this is not just a one-on-one issue; it also involves a colonial-era border imposed by Western intervention. Historically, Cambodia has had its claims on areas in Thailand, long before it was even called ‘Siam’. Cambodia links its connections with the Khmer Empire, from 802 AD to 1431 AD, its territory stretching from Laos, southern Vietnam, and even Thailand.

Thailand on one hand, has also historically held Cambodian territories, and even at one point in time made it a vassal state in 1594 A.D. Later on in the 19th century, during the Franco-Siam crisis Thailand was forced to cede its territories to France through several unfavorable border agreements which included the temple sites that both Thailand and Cambodia are fighting over to this very day (Preah Vihear).

​

Again in World War 2, those same borders were drawn out after Thailand’s allies (Japan) surrendered, through unsatisfactory terms for both countries by the Allies in 1945-46.

​

​

This very decision by the colonial powers has caused severe, long-lasting effects for both countries, despite them being in the ASEAN group. The major powers, the US, China, Russia, and other key players that have close ties with these countries, have tried to pull them into their sphere of influence. Thailand is known to be an old non-NATO ally of the United States after the war, but the US has its reasons to keep Bangkok from moving too close towards Beijing. Washington has played into the political environment, not just through diplomacy, but through ‘democracy promotion’ funding, especially via the National Endowment for Democracy (aka NED).

​

In Thailand, groups involved in reform have openly acknowledged this support. iLaw lists NED as a primary operational funder, and in 2020, it launched a major petition campaign seeking 50,000 signatures to push a constitutional rewrite process.

​

The United States uses this as leverage that can push Thai politics towards Washington’s preferences and away from Chinese influence. At the same time, it has also provided the country with military equipment in the past, ironically enough, like the Stryker infantry carrier vehicles.

​

The US has also played its role in Cambodia, albeit with more intensity due to its close ties with China. Back in December 2021, the U.S banned arms exports to Cambodia and added new export controls on items that could support military use, pointing out its concern over China’s growing military influence in the country (Chinese facilities near the Ream naval base), including corruption and human-rights abuses.

​

Alarmingly enough, the Riel has also lost its trust amongst the people, compelling the country to have the USD as the default currency for many. It brought some stability but reduced Cambodia’s control over its own monetary policy. The government is now pushing de-dollarisation by requiring prices to be quoted in riel and expanding riel payments.

Despite all this, Cambodia has asked the US to closely monitor the ceasefire, which was reinstated in July 2025. Thailand also tried making its moves to the international courts by filing a lawsuit against Cambodia’s prime minister Hun Sen to the ICC over war crimes and human rights violations, and Cambodia returned the favour over similar reasons.

​

It has become quite apparent that the conflict is heavily fueled and influenced by external forces that have continued to play their chess games in Southeast Asia, not just in 2025, but also in the many decades prior. China has repeatedly insisted that it will remain neutral, even amid the recent events in November-December 2025. During the ASEAN ministerial summit in Kuala Lumpur, they offered to mediate between the two nations via dialogue. Going so far as to encourage the ASEAN nations to lead the mediation and de-escalate the tensions between Cambodia and Thailand.

​

But recent information regarding Chinese-made variations of the PHL-03 was reported by the Thai military. This raises the question of whether or not China is providing weapons to Cambodia. Although one can argue that this may have been provided to them long before the conflict sparked.

​

And yet, Thailand has continued its effort to build its relations with China (King Maha Vajiralongkorn visited China on November 14) in the past couple of weeks, and is an official partner of BRICS (China is one of Thailand’s biggest trading partners). Cambodia has also placed its efforts into creating a stronger partnership with China, such as offering a visa-free policy for Chinese tourists. It has gained a significant revenue of over $17 billion in just 11 months through trade.

​

It is tough to tell who re-ignited this conflict. It is not our job to choose a side between Thailand and Cambodia. It’s not about who has the stronger legal argument at all, either. War, in the end, will always be a terrible outcome for everyone, and worse off for those who are caught in the firefight with no home to return to. Whatever the politics, people who look into this really need to see things through a much deeper lens before pushing either side to one sphere of influence over the other.

​

As mentioned earlier, it is ASEAN’s job to hold credible investigations into incidents and bring in more serious negotiations that focus on human security as much as territory. There is no need at all to condemn this as an act of Chinese influence, as many have been accusing them of doing, despite the constant offer from them to always put diplomacy first and to seek mediation with the Southeast Asian countries. The conflict can never be easily solved with a whim or a simple handshake; it takes a lot of obstacles for both nations to overcome. This also comes into consideration for other SEA countries as well, especially with countries like the Philippines over its claims in the South China Sea, and Myanmar’s civil war. The dominoes are starting to fall, and people should keep notice instead of warmongering over an obvious trap that could turn into an all-out war. We must never push towards a fight that will leave hundreds of thousands, if not millions, in a scenario many will regret for years to come.

 

 

Email: contact@asiancenturyph.com

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/asiancenturyph/

Twitter: https://twitter.com/AsianCenturyPH

Substack:

Also read: