Thailand–Cambodia Truce: Fragile Peace Amid Political Turmoil

Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Manet, SEAN Chair Anwar Ibrahim, and Thai Acting Prime Minister Phumtham Wechayachai (left to right), courtesy of the Diplomat

The border between Thailand and Cambodia, defined by sporadic diplomatic disputes, has long been a source of tension for the two countries. In September 2025, the two countries reached a truce to de-escalate tensions along their shared frontier. This agreement was introduced at a time of major political turmoil, with Thailand grappling with ongoing street protests and a fragile coalition government under Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin, and Cambodia undergoing a historic transition of power. Against this backdrop of instability, the truce brings a rare moment of calm, but its durability will depend on whether both governments can navigate their domestic crises while resisting the pull of regional rivalries. 

The truce centered on an ancient Khmer site situated atop a cliff in Cambodia’s northern Preah Vihear province. Although the United Nations International Court of Justice awarded sovereignty over the temple to Cambodia in 1962, the surrounding lands remained contested. Over the past two decades, the dispute has triggered repeated confrontations between Cambodia and Thailand, most notably between 2008 and 2011, when cross-border clashes left dozens of villagers dead and displaced thousands. 

Tensions over the Preah Vihear site surged dramatically in 2008 when the temple was designated a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Many in Thailand saw this as a diplomatic defeat, sparking nationalist protests and political backlash. As a result, Cambodian and Thai military forces exchanged fire, and both countries withdrew from positions near the temple. 

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) attempted to mediate the situation, but its commitment to non-interference limited its ability to act. Over the years, sporadic ceasefires have been brokered, but they have often collapsed amid domestic political crises in Thailand  and Cambodia. The current truce belongs to this long cycle of precarious agreements. 

For many local communities along the border, the stakes are high. The region is home to farmers, traders, and families whose livelihoods depend on cross-border commerce and tourism. Frequent flare-ups disrupt daily life, threatening food security and cutting off access to critical trade networks. The September agreement offers these communities a chance to rebuild, but past conflicts don’t lend much confidence to such goals. 

The September ceasefire was reached after weeks of heightened military tension and activity. According to reports from both governments, senior military and political leaders engaged in emergency talks to prevent further escalation. The agreement mandates the withdrawal of troops and reopening of closed border crossings, as well as the establishment of a joint monitoring mechanism to ensure compliance from both governments.

Thailand’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said it believes this deal will be a significant step toward lasting peace, and Cambodian officials emphasized their commitment to protecting the sovereignty of the Preah Vihear area. However, many regional observers remain cautious. Without strong enforcement and political will on both sides, the truce risks unravelling as quickly as it was formed. 

Thailand’s internal political instability is a key factor shaping its foreign policy decisions. Over the past two decades, the country has been gripped by an endless cycle of protests, coups, and constitutional crises. Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin, who assumed office in 2023, faces tremendous challenges, as his fragile coalition government relies on uneasy alliances between pro-democracy factions and remnants of the military establishment. Mounting economic stagnation, rising inequality, and ongoing corruption scandals have fueled widespread street demonstrations, intensifying pressure on Srettha’s government and deepening the country’s political turmoil. 

Within this context, the border dispute carries symbolic significance. Analysts argue that a government struggling to maintain stability at home has an incentive to project strength in foreign policy, as nationalist rhetoric about defending Thai territory can rally public support and distract from domestic crises. This dynamic complicates Thailand’s commitment to the truce more than it appears. 

Cambodia, on the other hand, is undergoing an unprecedented political transition. In 2023, Prime Minister Hun Sen stepped down after nearly four decades in power, handing leadership over to his son, Hun Manet. Although Hun Manet has pledged to modernize Cambodia’s economy and governance, he is inheriting a deeply authoritarian system. 

Political actors who oppose Hun Manet face severe restrictions, with many leaders already imprisoned or forced into exile. Civil society operates under tight controls, while independent media outlets face constant threats. In this environment, the border dispute serves as a tool for consolidating power. By positioning himself as the sole defender of Cambodia’s sovereignty, Prime Minister Hun Manet can bolster his legitimacy both domestically and within ASEAN. However, this strategy risks escalating nationalist sentiments and cornering the Cambodian government into a hardline stance that undermines diplomatic solutions. 

The Thailand-Cambodia truce holds political implications that go beyond their shared border. Both countries are key members of ASEAN, yet the organization's consensus-based decision-making process often hampers its ability to act decisively and leaves disputes unresolved. This limited regional response has opened space for external powers to exert influence; China, Cambodia’s largest foreign investor, has poured billions into infrastructure projects through its Belt and Road Initiative, strengthening Beijing’s leverage over Phnom Penh and raising concerns in Bangkok and Washington. Meanwhile, the United States views Thailand as a strategic partner for maintaining security and balance in Southeast Asia. As a result, this localized border conflict may be used as a proxy for broader geopolitical rivalries, with the truce’s success or failure closely influenced by policymakers in both Beijing and Washington.  

Despite cautious optimism from both parties, significant challenges to the truce persist. The ceasefire lacks a comprehensive framework for resolving the underlying territorial dispute, making future border clashes even more likely. Additionally, domestic instability in both countries amplifies the uncertainty: if the governments of either Thailand or Cambodia falter, political leaders may have to resort to nationalist posturing to increase support. This has historically been the case in the Preah Vihear conflict, often resulting in tragic consequences for civilians caught in the crossfire. 

While external powers such as China and the U.S. have clear strategic interests in the conflict, their involvement must be carefully managed. Heavy-handed interventions risk inflaming nationalist sentiment and complicating peace efforts, underscoring the need for diplomacy that empowers ASEAN and local communities as opposed to sidelining them. 

For residents of the border communities, peace is more than a political victory: it is a necessity. Human needs must remain central to diplomatic strategies, and a lasting resolution requires more than troop withdrawals: both governments have to address the root causes of conflict through reevaluating contested maps, historical grievances, and economic disparities. Building trust through joint development projects, cultural exchanges, and transparent governance can lay the foundation for genuine reconciliation. 

ASEAN’s authority will be tested by the border dispute. If the organization can help both countries move beyond a short-term ceasefire, it will reinforce its role as a key mediator in Southeast Asia. However, failure to act decisively will undermine ASEAN’s authority, further fracturing the South East Asia region . 

The September truce is a fragile window of peace along one of Southeast Asia’s most volatile borders, but its longevity depends on factors outside of the immediate dispute. Political instability in Bangkok and Phnom Penh, along with great power competition, creates a rather precarious environment for peace

For the time being, the guns remain silent. Whether this marks the beginning of a sustainable peace or is merely a pause before the next crisis will depend on the leadership on both sides, and the will of the people to demand a better future.