Thailand-Cambodia Ceasefire Collapses: Is Lasting Peace Impossible on Disputed Border?
How many times can a “ceasefire” be broken before it reveals itself as a theater of the absurd? The Royal Thai Army is asking that question aloud, having condemned the Cambodian military for a second violation of a bilateral ceasefire agreement signed just days before. Shells, small arms fire, and escalating condemnations mark a familiar script playing out along the Thai-Cambodian border. It’s tempting to see this as a localized conflict, a recurring irritant in a specific geographic area, as reported by the Bangkok Post. But that’s the mistake. These isolated skirmishes are less a bug than a feature of a broken system, exposing the hollowness at the heart of international conflict resolution.
Thailand is understandably deploying the full suite of diplomatic responses — lodging formal protests, inviting foreign military attachés for a first-hand view, and compiling evidence of Cambodian “distortions,” including aerial imagery. But these actions are largely performative, a ritualistic dance around a deeper, intractable problem. The fundamental problem isn’t a lack of evidence or diplomatic niceties, but a deficit of effective enforcement. What real leverage do Thailand, Malaysia (as ASEAN chair), or even larger powers like China and the United States have to compel lasting peace when national interests and historical grievances remain unresolved?
“These latest actions by the Cambodian military constitutes a serious violation of the ceasefire agreement, marking the second such breach since the agreement came into effect. They reflect a clear disregard for international obligations, undermine efforts to solve the situation through peaceful means, and adversely affect the stability and mutual trust that should exist between the two nations.”
The Cambodian-Thai border dispute is a long and tangled history, with roots that stretch back to the colonial era, France’s drawing of borders in the early 20th century, and the enduring shadow of the Khmer Rouge regime. Disputes over the Preah Vihear temple, now a UNESCO World Heritage site, have repeatedly triggered clashes. But it’s not just territory; it’s the political symbolism imbued in every acre. The temple, for instance, sits atop a cliff overlooking Cambodia, a potent reminder, depending on your perspective, of either historical ownership or ongoing territorial threat. Even seemingly mundane issues like fishing rights in shared waters can ignite deeper tensions. In this context, ceasefires become less about achieving lasting peace and more about managing, or rather muddling through, recurring periods of violence.
Why can’t these types of conflicts be contained? Consider the incentives at play. For Cambodia, a posture of defiance can be useful domestically, rallying nationalistic sentiment and distracting from internal issues. Thailand, meanwhile, may see a measured response as projecting regional strength. But these calculations rarely align with the interests of ordinary citizens who find themselves living on the border and are now facing a drone ban limiting their activity and threatening their businesses. The Civil Aviation Authority has issued a strict ban on drone flights within a 9-kilometre radius of airports and temporary landing zones in 14 provinces. These bans disrupt both the drone-based businesses that are becoming popular in rural Thai provinces and drone-based news operations. This, in turn, feeds local resentment and further destabilizes the region, a perfect illustration of how seemingly unrelated policies can exacerbate conflict.
The structural causes are often overlooked. One study by conflict resolution expert, Peter Wallensteen, highlights how border disputes are not only about territory but about identity, resources, and relative power. Often, these conflicts are perpetuated by asymmetric power dynamics, where one side believes it has more to gain through aggression than negotiation. Furthermore, the international community frequently relies on a framework of “negative peace” — the absence of overt violence — rather than pursuing a “positive peace,” characterized by justice, equity, and sustainable development. In these areas, the Cambodian-Thai border falls woefully short. Adding to this is the role of arms proliferation. Small arms, often sourced from illicit markets, flow freely across the border, empowering local actors and making de-escalation infinitely more difficult. This ready availability of weaponry acts as a constant temptation, turning simmering tensions into open conflict.
This latest ceasefire breach, the gas station and 7-Eleven destroyed, is another reminder that the current architecture of international peace is often more facade than foundation. We’re operating with tools designed for a world that no longer exists, one where great powers could reliably enforce order. Now, we’re seeing a proliferation of sub-state actors and complex regional dynamics that defy easy solutions. Perhaps the answer lies not in more ceasefires, but in re-thinking our very conception of peace, moving beyond the mere absence of war toward the active construction of lasting stability, one that addresses the underlying grievances fueling these seemingly endless cycles of violence. But even that, it seems, is an exercise in optimism. For in a world increasingly defined by fractured narratives and competing interests, the very idea of a shared understanding of “justice, equity, and sustainable development” — the very building blocks of “positive peace” — feels increasingly elusive. And without that shared understanding, even the most well-intentioned interventions risk becoming yet another round in the theater of the absurd.
