Thailand-Cambodia Border Conflict Escalates: Trump’s Ceasefire Collapses
According to the International Desk of Webangah News Agency, renewed artillery fire and airstrikes have erupted along the Thailand-Cambodia border, effectively ending the ceasefire previously touted as a diplomatic victory by Donald Trump. The recent surge in violence underscores the limitations of superficial diplomatic interventions and short-term economic pressures in addressing deep-rooted historical grievances.
Thailand’s aerial assaults and Cambodia’s artillery responses have resulted in casualties on both sides, displacing an estimated 400,000 people. The escalation suggests that achieving lasting peace in the region requires more than symbolic gestures. Saisihak Puangkhekaew, a senior Thai diplomat and Foreign Ministry official, told Al Jazeera that ‘there is no space for diplomacy in the current situation,’ reflecting the depth of the crisis and the failure of current peace efforts.
The clashes, which began on December 7, 2025, challenge the October agreement and expose the illusion that a swift ceasefire and economic pressure could resolve centuries-old territorial and identity disputes between the neighboring countries.
The ancient Preah Vihear temple, constructed during the Khmer Empire’s golden age in the 11th and 12th centuries, has become a focal point of contention between Thailand and Cambodia. The temple, originally Hindu and later Buddhist, is situated on the cliffs of the Dangrek mountain range, forming a natural border between the two nations.
The current dispute traces back to the French-Siam treaties of 1904 and 1907, which defined the border along the Dangrek Mountains’ watershed line. However, French maps deviated from this line, placing the temple within Cambodian territory. While Thailand, then known as Siam, did not formally contest the map at the time, it later contested this demarcation.
In 1962, the International Court of Justice in The Hague ruled that the temple belonged to Cambodia, but the status of the surrounding land remained ambiguous. This ambiguity has fueled future conflicts. Tensions flared again in 2008 when Cambodia nominated Preah Vihear for UNESCO World Heritage status, leading to armed clashes between 2008 and 2011 that resulted in at least 20 fatalities.
The Preah Vihear dispute is not merely a geopolitical issue; it symbolizes national identity and historical pride. For Cambodians, Preah Vihear represents the heritage of the Khmer Empire and a connection to their illustrious past. For Thais, the area is considered part of their historical territory, mistakenly ceded to Cambodia in colonial-era maps.
The 2025 conflicts reignited in the same region. On May 28, 2025, a clash near the Preah Vihear temple resulted in the death of a Cambodian soldier, triggering months of heightened tension. Subsequently, on July 24, five days of intense fighting, involving heavy artillery and Thai airstrikes, caused at least 48 deaths and displaced over 300,000 people.
This cycle of violence indicates that the Preah Vihear dispute is not solely a border issue but reflects historical rivalries, nationalist sentiments, and collective memory, which cannot be resolved through a superficial ceasefire. The temple, initially built for worship, has become a symbol of a conflict rooted in the complex layers of history, colonialism, and national identity.
When Donald Trump oversaw the ceasefire agreement between Thailand and Cambodia in Kuala Lumpur on October 26, 2025, he hailed it as a major diplomatic triumph. By threatening to halt trade negotiations and impose significant tariffs, Trump compelled both countries to accept the ceasefire, portraying it as evidence of his ability to end wars. Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Manet even pledged to nominate Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize.
However, the reality diverged from the proclaimed success. Less than two weeks after the agreement was signed, Thailand suspended its implementation following the injury of several Thai soldiers in a mine explosion. Thailand accused Cambodia of laying new mines, an allegation Cambodia refuted. This incident marked the first crack in the Trump-brokered agreement, culminating in its complete collapse in December.
The fundamental flaw in Trump’s approach was his perception of the Thailand-Cambodia conflict as a short-term security issue that could be resolved through economic pressure and a swift ceasefire. However, the conflict is rooted in over a century of complex history, including colonial-era treaties with France, disputed border maps, historical rivalries between the Khmer and Siamese empires, and deep-seated nationalist sentiments in both countries.
The October agreement lacked any mechanism for resolving the core disputes, such as the ownership of land surrounding the Preah Vihear temple and other border points. The release of 18 Cambodian prisoners and the withdrawal of heavy artillery were merely superficial measures that failed to address fundamental questions: Who owns the disputed territories? How should the border be demarcated? What mechanisms are in place to prevent future conflicts?
Analysts had cautioned that a long road lay ahead to achieve lasting peace, but Trump and his diplomatic team appeared to disregard the complexities of the conflict. They assumed that economic pressure would suffice to bring the two countries to the negotiating table, failing to recognize that the conflict between Thailand and Cambodia stems not from economic interests but from identity-based sentiments and historical memory.
The situation on the Thailand-Cambodia border is now more precarious than at any time in the past decade. Clashes involving missiles, drones, and heavy artillery have persisted for several days, spreading to multiple points along the border and resulting in numerous casualties on both sides.
Beyond the ever-changing casualty figures, the political rhetoric is intensifying. Former Cambodian leader and current Senate President Hun Sen wrote on his Facebook page: ‘Our armed forces must respond in all locations where the enemy attacks.’ Conversely, the Prime Minister of Thailand declared that negotiations are over unless Cambodia respects the ceasefire commitments.
Saisihak Puangkhekaew, the senior Thai diplomat and Foreign Ministry official, also emphasized: ‘Diplomacy works when there is space for it. Unfortunately, we do not have that space at the moment.’ He added that military operations will continue until Cambodia demonstrates a genuine willingness to stop.
The international community’s response has been muted. Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim expressed deep concern, stating that ‘the renewed conflict risks unraveling the delicate work that has been done to stabilize relations.’ United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres urged both countries to return to the Kuala Lumpur framework, but no significant pressure has been applied.
The United States, which had presented the ceasefire as a diplomatic success, stated through a senior official that ‘President Trump is committed to stopping the violence and expects the governments of Cambodia and Thailand to fully honor their commitments,’ but these statements have had little impact on the ground.
The U.S. Embassy has warned American citizens to avoid traveling within 50 kilometers of the Thailand-Cambodia border, as the situation remains unstable. Large-scale evacuations of civilians from both sides of the border are ongoing, and Thailand has announced the establishment of approximately 500 temporary shelters in four border provinces, housing over 125,000 people.
The situation strongly suggests a potential escalation of the conflict. Thai media report that the Army Chief of Staff stated Thailand’s objective is ‘to disable the Cambodian army for a long time,’ indicating a resolve for more extensive military actions. Simultaneously, the Thai Navy has initiated operations to expel Cambodian forces from disputed areas.
Overall, the outlook is bleak, and at best, international pressure and war-weariness could lead to another temporary ceasefire. However, without resolving the core disputes, this ceasefire will also be fragile. At worst, the clashes could escalate into a full-scale war with devastating consequences for both countries and regional stability.
