Greece (Brussels Morning Newspaper) In the shadow of the ancient Preah Vihear temple—a centuries-old emblem of contested sovereignty—recent violence has reopened wounds along the Thai-Cambodian frontier. Over five days of intense artillery barrages and cross-border fire, more than 43 people lost their lives and upwards of 300,000 were uprooted from their homes.
The clashes, among the most severe in over a decade, underscored how unresolved historical grievances and blurred colonial-era borders continue to destabilize Southeast Asia’s geopolitical fault lines. By Tuesday, guns had fallen silent as military commanders from both sides met to uphold a fragile truce brokered in Malaysia. Yet as villagers cautiously return to the devastated borderlands, fears persist that peace may prove fleeting without sustained diplomatic engagement and regional pressure to address the root causes of the conflict.
To outsiders unfamiliar with the region, the scale of bloodshed and displacement might seem disproportionate to the dispute—a question of ownership over a remote temple and its surrounding ruins. In another part of the world, say between Sweden and Norway, such a disagreement might have been resolved through joint stewardship or shared heritage zones.
But here, the stakes are different. The site carries deep symbolic weight, and victory—however defined—offers more than just territorial gain. It confers political capital, religious prestige, and a powerful sense of national legitimacy that neither side appears willing to forfeit.
U.S. Leverage Halts Fighting
The breakthrough ceasefire, nominally brokered by Malaysia, likely owes as much to Washington as to regional diplomacy. U.S. President Donald Trump’s Saturday ultimatum—warning both Thailand and Cambodia that failure to halt hostilities would derail ongoing talks on tariff reductions—appears to have delivered the decisive push. With both economies heavily reliant on exports to the U.S., and facing a potential 36% tariff without a deal, the risk of losing access to preferential trade terms gave the warring sides little room to maneuver. Neighbouring exporters like Vietnam and Indonesia already enjoy reduced rates below 20%, putting added pressure on Bangkok and Phnom Penh to avoid being sidelined in regional trade.
Still, sustaining the truce will prove far more difficult. Mistrust between the two armies runs deep following a sudden escalation last Thursday, when Cambodian rocket salvos caused the bulk of the civilian casualties and transformed sporadic skirmishes into a wider conflict. Thai officials remain publicly sceptical of Cambodia’s intentions, while nationalist fervour on both sides continues to complicate diplomacy.
The United Nations has increasingly found itself on the margins of global crisis management, unable to enforce peace in many of the world’s most volatile regions. Once envisioned as the central arbiter of international stability, the U.N.—and particularly its Security Council—has struggled with paralysis, often stymied by competing interests among its permanent members. In the absence of decisive action, mediation efforts have increasingly been outsourced to individual states—either those with deep-rooted diplomatic traditions or those perceived as neutral and credible by the local actors involved.
This pattern has become more pronounced in recent years, as the number of active conflicts has surged and more states teeter on the edge of confrontation. From the Horn of Africa to Eastern Europe and Southeast Asia, the burden of peace-building has shifted to a patchwork of ad hoc negotiations and power-brokered ceasefires. Critics argue that the Security Council has failed in its core mandate to uphold international peace and security, pointing to its inability to prevent or resolve many of the major flashpoints of the past decade.
Still, defenders of the U.N. push back, noting that despite escalating regional tensions, the world has thus far avoided descending into another global war. Whether that restraint is due to multilateral institutions or mutual deterrence remains a matter of debate—though perhaps one best left for another article.
What Future Holds
Despite the ceasefire, political pressures at home remain intense. Both Thai and Cambodian leaders are navigating powerful nationalist undercurrents, wary of appearing conciliatory in the eyes of their domestic audiences. On Cambodia’s northwestern border, displaced residents remain reluctant to return, citing uncertainty and fear of renewed hostilities.
Military commanders from both sides have convened for talks since the truce took effect, though tensions persist. Thailand has accused Cambodian forces of launching coordinated attacks in five separate areas—allegations firmly denied by Phnom Penh, which insists its troops have adhered strictly to the ceasefire since it came into force. Defense Minister Tea Seiha reaffirmed Cambodia’s commitment to the truce, even as regional analysts warn that further flare-ups remain likely, drawing parallels to the fragile and intermittent peace that followed earlier clashes from 2008 to 2011.
In the aftermath of the Ukraine war, a growing number of neighbouring states have begun testing long-contested borders—not based on international recognition, but on historical claims or strategic ambitions. The global security order appears increasingly fragmented, with the United Nations sidelined and unable to enforce meaningful terms of peace. Into that vacuum have stepped major powers like the United States and China, assuming the role of ad hoc mediators in conflicts where diplomacy has become transactional and influence is currency.
Dear reader,
Opinions expressed in the op-ed section are solely those of the individual author and do not represent the official stance of our newspaper. We believe in providing a platform for a wide range of voices and perspectives, even those that may challenge or differ from our own. We remain committed to providing our readers with high-quality, fair, and balanced journalism. Thank you for your continued support.
