Thailand-Cambodia Border Dispute 2025: A Comprehensive Analysis of Context, Dynamics, and Regional Geopolitical Impact

Summary of the Thailand-Cambodia Conflict

The border conflict that erupted between Thailand and Cambodia in 2025 is a complex event, rooted in historical tensions and driven by modern geopolitical factors. Although a ceasefire has been established, the situation remains extremely fragile. This report delves into the main dynamics of the conflict, analyzing the conflicting claims of the two nations, examining the roles and interests of external parties, and comprehensively assessing the economic and humanitarian consequences. The clashes not only reflect ambiguous territorial disputes but are also influenced by internal political factors and the strategic rivalry among major powers. The current ceasefire, while a significant step forward, is only considered a temporary solution. The lack of long-term dispute resolution mechanisms and the sensitive nature of issues related to nationalism make the prospect of achieving sustainable peace uncertain.

Part I: Field Analysis and Conflicting Claims

Outbreak and Ceasefire

The 2025 border conflict was not a random event but the culmination of a long-simmering series of tensions. Incidents began to escalate seriously in May when an armed clash in the Emerald Triangle area, where Thailand, Cambodia, and Laos intersect, resulted in the death of a Cambodian soldier. In response, Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Manet announced he would submit the case to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), although both sides later stated they did not want the situation to escalate.

However, incidents involving landmines in mid-July ignited a full-scale conflict. From July 16 to 23, a series of PMN-2 mine explosions caused casualties among several Thai soldiers while they were patrolling in territory claimed by Thailand. These incidents led Thailand to downgrade diplomatic relations with Cambodia, and full-scale armed clashes erupted on July 24. The fighting lasted for 5 days, resulting in dozens of deaths and the displacement of over 260,000 people on both sides of the border.

In light of this situation, international mediators, particularly the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), made strong diplomatic intervention efforts. Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, as ASEAN Chair in 2025, presided over an emergency meeting in Kuala Lumpur. This meeting resulted in an “unconditional ceasefire” agreement between Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Manet and Thai Acting Prime Minister Phumtham Wechayachai on July 28, effective from midnight on the same day. Following this, on August 7, the two countries signed a “13-Point Ceasefire Implementation Agreement,” committing to maintaining their current military positions, refraining from deploying or reinforcing troops, and exercising restraint from provocative actions.

Although reaching a ceasefire agreement is a positive sign, it only serves as a temporary solution to a decades-old problem. This ceasefire is likened to a “temporary bandage” placed on a “long-festering wound.” ASEAN’s swift intervention shows that both sides are aware of the negative impacts of a prolonged conflict. However, the nature of this agreement does not address the root cause of the problem, indicating an extremely fragile peace that could be broken at any time.

The War of Words: Who Violated the Ceasefire?

After the ceasefire took effect, a “war of words” broke out between Thailand and Cambodia, with both sides accusing the other of violating the agreement.

Thailand’s Argument: Thailand accused Cambodia of not strictly adhering to the agreement immediately after it came into force. Deputy Spokesperson for the Thai military, Ritcha Suksuwanon, stated that clashes continued in the Phu Makua and Sam Taet areas in the early morning of July 29. Major General Winthai Suwaree, Spokesperson for the Royal Thai Army, called this an “intentional violation of the agreement” and affirmed that Thailand was forced to respond with the right of “legitimate self-defense.”

Thailand’s most serious accusation was that Cambodia had newly laid PMN-2 landmines in areas that had been declared clear of mines by the Thai National Mine Action Center (T-MAC) from 2020-2022. According to Thailand, the discovery of 41 new mines from July 15 to August 12 proved a deliberate act to cause casualties among Thai soldiers, citing images of Cambodian soldiers holding a cluster of PMN-2 mines near the Ta Kwai temple area. Thailand presented “clear evidence” of mine deployment to diplomats from 33 countries, claiming this act violated the Ottawa Convention and international humanitarian law, while also warning of the right to self-defense if the situation continues.

Cambodia’s Argument: Cambodia completely rejected Thailand’s accusations. Lieutenant General Maly Socheata, Spokesperson for the Cambodian Ministry of Defense, affirmed that the ceasefire was implemented “strictly and as agreed” immediately after it became effective. She emphasized that no gunfire occurred along the border from midnight on July 29 and called it the “first successful step” in the peace process.

Regarding the mine-laying accusation, Cambodia “categorically and unreservedly” rejected Thailand’s claims. Government organizations such as the Cambodian Mine Action Authority (CMAA) asserted that Cambodia is a “responsible member” of the Ottawa Convention, having destroyed its mine stockpiles and cleared millions of square meters of contaminated land after decades of war. Cambodia accused Thailand’s statements of being “untrue and misleading,” aimed at “provocation” and “violating territory.” Cambodia also made its own accusations, pointing out that Thailand had violated the ceasefire agreement by erecting barbed wire and placing tires in a border village in Banteay Meanchey province.

This information war shows the lack of independent evidence to verify either side’s claims. Both parties use accusations to strengthen their positions and gain the support of the international community. This highlights the complex nature of the conflict, where actual events are obscured by conflicting statements, weakening an already very fragile trust.

Table 1: Comparison of Conflicting Claims and Accusations

Part II: Origins and Deeper Dynamics of the Conflict

Colonial Legacy and Border Issues

To understand the recurring conflicts between Thailand and Cambodia, it is necessary to go back to the colonial era. The origin of these disputes stems from the ambiguity in the border established by the Franco-Siamese Treaty of 1904. The maps drawn by the French at that time created “gray zones” that were not clearly delineated along the 817-kilometer land border between the two nations.

This legacy has left a “hidden danger.” The clashes are not merely a simple border issue but a prolonged inability of the two countries to resolve century-old ambiguous boundaries. This is a systemic problem, beyond the control of any single incumbent government. Therefore, although the parties can sign a ceasefire agreement, the underlying issues remain unresolved, leaving the situation with a constant risk of re-escalation.

The Position of Ancient Temples

Ancient temples located along the border are not just cultural heritage but also the focal point of the dispute. Temples like Preah Vihear and the Ta Muen Thom/Ta Kwai temple complex have become “symbols of national identity.” The 1962 ruling by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) awarded sovereignty over the Preah Vihear temple to Cambodia but did not clarify the surrounding land, creating a “hotspot” and a “strategic focal point” for subsequent disputes.

The fact that these temples have become “emotional and political symbols” means that any diplomatic concession can be seen as “betrayal” of national heritage and pride. This explains why clashes can erupt from minor incidents such as Cambodian tourists being prevented from singing the national anthem at the Prasat Ta Muen Thom temple. Therefore, historical and cultural factors continue to play a significant role, making a resolution more difficult than with regular border disputes where negotiations can focus solely on purely territorial issues.

Internal Political Factors

Analyzing internal political dynamics is crucial to understanding why border conflicts tend to recur. The political situation in both countries has created a “dangerous feedback loop” where leaders use the conflict to address domestic issues.

In Thailand, Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra faced political pressure after leaks about her “overly friendly” relationship with Hun Sen. The military’s tough stance and the downgrading of diplomatic relations can be seen as an effort to consolidate its position and power before the public. The power of the Thai military also seems to be taking advantage of the political opportunity to assert its independence and role in national politics.

In Cambodia, Prime Minister Hun Manet is in a transitional phase of power from his father, Hun Sen, and faces economic challenges as well as international scrutiny. The use of a border conflict as a “distraction strategy” could be an underlying motive. By stirring up nationalism, leaders can divert public attention from domestic problems and strengthen national unity around a “foreign threat.” This explains why clashes can erupt unexpectedly and escalate quickly, even though both sides claim they do not want war.

Part III: Analysis of External Parties’ Interests

The Dynamic Role of ASEAN

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has played a crucial mediating role in this conflict. As the 2025 Chair, Malaysia actively led the reconciliation efforts. The result was the signing of the “13-Point Ceasefire Implementation Agreement,” which included the establishment of an “ASEAN observer group” led by Malaysia.

However, ASEAN’s effectiveness in managing regional conflicts remains a major challenge. The bloc’s approach is often “slow-burn conflict management” rather than direct problem-solving. This leads to a dependence on the willingness of the rotating Chair and the lack of a long-term enforcement monitoring mechanism, making peace fragile. This conflict is a crucial test of ASEAN’s ability to self-resolve internal issues, especially in the context of major powers competing for influence. The success or failure of ASEAN in maintaining peace will affect the bloc’s central role in the regional security structure.

Rivalry Between Major Powers

The Thailand-Cambodia border conflict is also viewed through the lens of strategic rivalry between major powers, particularly the US and China. Although the conflict is not a proxy war, it is “entangled” in this broader confrontation.

The US: The US has a long-standing security alliance with Thailand, a key partner in its Indo-Pacific strategy. The US also maintains relations with Cambodia, albeit more limited, to prevent it from becoming too dependent on China. The Trump administration used a “carrot and stick” strategy, threatening to withdraw trade agreements to pressure the parties to cease fire, as confirmed by Acting Secretary of State Marco Rubio. US interests go beyond the border conflict. By promoting peace, the US maintains its partnership with Thailand and prevents China from exploiting tensions to consolidate its influence in the region.

China: China is Cambodia’s leading strategic partner and main military supplier. This relationship is strengthened by large investments and projects like the upgrading of the Ream Naval Base. China also has growing defense ties with Thailand. China announced its support for reconciliation and offered assistance based on the wishes of both countries. China’s role is that of an “honest broker,” but with clear strategic motives. By intervening, China not only protects its interests in Cambodia but also has an opportunity to strengthen its position in Thailand and weaken US influence in the region, contributing to its broader strategic goals in Southeast Asia.

Vietnam’s Position

Vietnam has multifaceted interests in this conflict. Economically, both Thailand and Cambodia are major trading and investment partners for Vietnam. Stability in the Mekong region is vital for Vietnam’s security and economic development, especially in areas like trade, transport, and food security.

Politically, Vietnam shares a border with Cambodia and Thailand. Therefore, a prolonged conflict carries the risk of spreading and directly affecting Vietnam’s security. Vietnam’s official position is to call on the parties to exercise restraint, refrain from using force, and resolve disputes through dialogue and ASEAN mechanisms. Vietnam’s support for ASEAN’s central role in resolving regional issues also helps increase its geopolitical standing. Vietnamese Prime Minister Pham Minh Chinh expressed his readiness to send representatives to participate in ASEAN-led mechanisms to support the implementation of the ceasefire agreement.

Part IV: Comprehensive Economic and Social Impact

The border conflict has caused serious economic and social consequences for both countries and the region.

Economic Damage

Trade and Supply Chains: Thailand’s sudden closure of all border crossings with Cambodia at the end of July paralyzed bilateral trade. The northeastern provinces of Thailand, where border trade averages $15 million/month, suffered heavy losses. The agricultural export sector, especially fruits and vegetables, was severely affected. This disruption also caused a complete bottleneck in the Mekong region’s entire supply chain, forcing businesses to find alternative transport routes through other countries, increasing delivery time and costs.

Tourism: The tourism sector, an economic “spearhead” for both countries, was heavily impacted. Cambodia recorded a decrease in international visitors by up to 70% in July, and the stock prices of tourism and hotel sectors in the region dropped by an average of 12%. In Thailand, border provinces like Surin and Si Sa Ket saw a decrease in hotel bookings by up to 50%.

Table 2: Economic Damage of the Conflict

Humanitarian Consequences

Displacement and Casualties: The conflict caused an immediate humanitarian crisis. Initial data show that dozens of people were killed, including civilians, and over 260,000 people were displaced from their homes to seek temporary shelter. This created a huge burden on relief organizations and local authorities in providing food, housing, and medical care.

Long-Term Impact from Mines: One of the most worrying consequences is the threat from landmines. Although Cambodia has made great achievements in mine clearance, with a significant decrease in the number of victims in recent years, recent mine explosions have eroded trust and created a persistent threat to residential communities. Accusations of new mine-laying, if confirmed, are not only a violation of international law but also a reversal of decades of humanitarian efforts. This threat will affect economic and social recovery, sow fear, and hinder sustainable development in the affected areas.

Conclusion and Future Outlook

The Thailand-Cambodia border conflict in 2025 is a clear testament to the complexity of security issues in Southeast Asia. Although the ceasefire has brought a moment of calm, peace remains very fragile. This conflict is not merely a border clash but a complex intersection of unresolved historical legacies, internal political dynamics, and the influence rivalry of major powers.

The prospect of a long-term solution remains challenging. The fundamental issues of border demarcation and the role of ancient temples as national symbols have not been resolved. Domestic political pressure in both countries may continue to push leaders to take hardline stances, further complicating diplomatic efforts. In this context, ASEAN’s role in maintaining regional stability becomes crucial, but it also reveals the limitations of its mechanisms and enforcement capacity.

To promote sustainable peace, the involved parties need to take the following strategic steps:

• Thailand and Cambodia must strictly adhere to the “13-Point Ceasefire Implementation Agreement” and return to the negotiating table with good faith. The establishment of a transparent monitoring mechanism with the participation of independent observers from ASEAN or international bodies is essential to rebuild trust.
• ASEAN needs to develop a stronger and more institutionalized framework for resolving internal conflicts, moving beyond the current ad-hoc mediation method. This will help the bloc become more autonomous in managing regional issues and strengthen its central role.
• Major powers like the US and China should continue to encourage de-escalation, but their intervention should focus on supporting ASEAN-led efforts, rather than bypassing the bloc. This will avoid the risk of turning a local conflict into a proxy confrontation, which would further complicate the situation and weaken the regional security structure.