The Thailand–Cambodia conflict has entered a volatile new phase, marked not just by border tensions and diplomatic hostilities, but by the sudden collapse of a political alliance that once underpinned regional stability. What began decades ago as a strategic partnership between Thaksin Shinawatra and Hun Sen—built on mutual survival, authoritarian instincts, and personal loyalty—has now ruptured dramatically.
The recent leaked phone call between Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra and Hun Sen, followed by Hun Sen’s incendiary Facebook Live broadcast, exposed deep personal and political fractures in what was once an unshakable brotherhood. This betrayal has intensified existing hostilities, sparking cybercrime allegations, veiled references to Thailand’s monarchy and military, and a dangerous escalation of border tensions.
This breakdown is more than interpersonal acrimony—it is a systemic failure that destabilizes longstanding regional balances. As these two dynasties harden their positions, ASEAN’s fragile unity faces new strain. The bloc’s reliance on consensus and non-interference appears increasingly inadequate in mediating intra-member disputes, mainly when fueled by nationalist politics and dynastic rivalries.
Importantly, this unfolding drama must be situated within the broader canvas of China–US strategic competition. Cambodia’s deepening alignment with China—manifested in both military and economic integration—stands in stark contrast to Thailand’s complex positioning between its longstanding US security commitments and shifting domestic politics. The current crisis transforms a bilateral falling-out into a geopolitical flashpoint: where dynastic betrayal, populist nationalism, and cyber provocations echo beyond local boundaries, inviting external influence and magnifying regional insecurities.
Thus, the Thailand–Cambodia conflict is not merely a tale of contested borders or disinformation. It is a profound reckoning with the fragility of authoritarian alliances, the inadequacies of ASEAN’s diplomatic infrastructure, and the growing imprint of great power rivalry in Southeast Asia’s internal affairs.
The historical roots of the Thailand–Cambodia conflict can be traced back to colonial legacies and competing national narratives that continue to shape bilateral relations. Central to the discord is the Preah Vihear temple, a revered cultural heritage site perched atop the Dangrek Mountains, claimed by both nations but awarded to Cambodia in a 1962 ruling by the International Court of Justice—a decision still contested in Thailand due to lingering ambiguities over adjacent borderlands. French colonial cartography, which underpinned the ICJ ruling, remains a source of tension, as Thailand argues it misrepresented historical boundaries. This cartographic controversy reflects a broader struggle over identity and sovereignty: while Cambodia views Preah Vihear as a symbol of postcolonial justice and cultural pride, Thai nationalist factions interpret the dispute as emblematic of foreign-imposed injustice and territorial erosion. Additional flashpoints—such as military skirmishes in 2008–2011, nationalist protests, and politicized narratives around historical memory—underscore how colonial-era delineations, fused with contemporary identity politics, have entrenched mistrust and periodically destabilized the bilateral relationship.
The Thailand–Cambodia conflict has escalated into its most violent phase in decades, with diplomatic ties severed, military engagements intensifying, and domestic political pressures fueling the crisis. As of late July 2025, both countries have withdrawn ambassadors and suspended bilateral cooperation following a series of explosive incidents—including landmine casualties, cybercrime accusations, and direct military strikes. The Thai Air Force deployed F-16 fighter jets in cross-border bombings. At the same time, Cambodia retaliated with Soviet-era rocket launchers targeting Thai border towns, resulting in civilian deaths and mass evacuations.
This renewed hostility stems from a breakdown in elite-level trust. The leaked phone call between Thai Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra and Hun Sen—once allies through the Thaksin-Hun Sen axis—triggered a cascade of accusations and political fallout. Hun Sen’s public release of the call undermined Thailand’s civilian leadership, emboldened military hardliners, and led to the Constitutional Court’s suspension of Prime Minister Prayut. In Cambodia, the conflict has served as a rallying point to consolidate domestic authority and distract from internal vulnerabilities.
Both governments are now locked in a cycle of escalation driven by nationalist fervor and elite rivalry. While neither side appears poised for full-scale war, the current trajectory suggests prolonged low-intensity conflict, with border skirmishes, airstrikes, and diplomatic isolation becoming the new normal. ASEAN’s mediation efforts remain limited, and external actors—particularly China—have expressed concern but refrained from direct intervention.
Cyber clashes have intensified the scope of the conflict. Thai and Cambodian hacker groups—BlackEye-Thai and AnonsecKh—have launched reciprocal attacks on government and military infrastructure in Thailand and Cambodia. At the same time, disinformation campaigns have stoked nationalist sentiment. Cambodia’s conscription announcement and Thailand’s legal actions against Hun Sen for alleged cyber interference underscore the domestic political crisis.
The conflict poses a direct challenge to ASEAN’s cohesion and credibility. ASEAN’s principle of non-interference has rendered it largely ineffective in mediating the crisis, exposing ASEAN’s limitations. ASEAN’s cybercrime cooperation between Thailand and Cambodia poses a threat to ASEAN’s digital integration agenda and cybersecurity norms. Economically, the crisis has disrupted cross-border trade, stalled infrastructure projects, such as the Eastern ASEAN Corridor, and triggered capital flight from Thai markets. Investors are shifting their focus toward defensive sectors in Singapore and Malaysia, while steering clear of cross-border ventures.
Spillover risks are acute. Myanmar’s instability, coupled with porous borders and transnational criminal networks, creates a volatile regional environment. The conflict could undermine Myanmar’s other unresolved disputes—such as those involving Laos or Vietnam—and undermine ASEAN’s conflict-prevention mechanisms.
The international response has been swift but fragmented. The United States expressed grave concern over civilian harm and called for the cessation of hostilities. China, while “deeply concerned,” has adopted a dual posture—calling for restraint while quietly expanding its role in mediation. Malaysia, as ASEAN chair, has offered to facilitate dialogue, but Thailand has rejected third-party mediation. Japan and South Korea, with significant economic interests in both countries, have supported ASEAN-led efforts to de-escalate tensions in the region. Humanitarian organizations have mobilized to assist displaced populations, but access remains limited due to ongoing military operations and border closures. The UN Security Council convened an emergency closed-door session at Cambodia’s request. While the meeting acknowledged the conflict, no binding resolution was adopted. Historically, the Council has struggled to intervene effectively in Southeast Asian disputes due to member state sensitivities and the region’s preference for localized diplomacy. The current impasse reflects broader challenges in applying global governance frameworks to intra-ASEAN sectors.
Thailand has categorically rejected international mediation, insisting on bilateral resolution through the Joint Boundary Commission. This stance is rooted in concerns over national sovereignty, fears of external bias, and the political risks of appearing weak domestically. Nationalism plays a central role. Thai leaders have framed the conflict as a defense of territorial integrity, using anti-Cambodian rhetoric to rally domestic support. Accepting outside mediation could undermine this narrative and expose internal divisions. Thailand’s position complicates regional and international efforts to de-escalate the crisis, reinforcing the need for creative diplomacy that respects Thailand’s sovereignty while enabling dialogue.
China has positioned itself as a cautious mediator, calling for restraint while deepening its strategic footprint in Cambodia. Beijing’s interests include maintaining regional stability, protecting Belt and Road investments, and countering US influence in mainland Southeast Asia. Cambodia remains a key Chinese ally, hosting military infrastructure and receiving substantial economic aid. Thailand, while historically aligned with the US, has shown signs of hedging—balancing its security ties with the West and its economic opportunities with China. China’s mediation efforts are part of a broader strategy to shape regional norms and institutions. By facilitating dialogue while avoiding overt intervention, Beijing seeks to project soft power and reinforce its role as a stabilizing force; however, critics argue that this approach masks deeper strategic ambitions.
The Thailand–Cambodia conflict has rapidly evolved from a bilateral dispute into a strategic flashpoint in the Indo-Pacific, increasingly interpreted through the lens of the US-China global rivalry. Cambodia’s aggressive military posture—marked by rocket attacks on Thai civilians and provocative cyber operations—has coincided with reports of Cambodia’s overt outreach to Beijing, including a suspected flight to China during peak hostilities. Thailand, a major non-NATO ally of the United States, has responded with calibrated military force.
For Thailand and Cambodia, embracing this lens carries significant risks. It could entrench zero-sum thinking, escalate arms races, and polarize domestic politics around foreign alignments. Yet, it also offers strategic leverage: Thailand can rally international support by invoking sovereignty and democratic norms, while Cambodia may seek Chinese backing to offset diplomatic isolation. For regional stability, however, the costs may outweigh the benefits—especially if ASEAN’s mediating role is sidelined or if the conflict spills into maritime domains, such as the South China Sea.
This framing of the conflict as a proxy arena between Washington and Beijing is both analytically compelling and strategically fraught. On one hand, it highlights the growing entanglement of Southeast Asian disputes in global power politics, offering explanatory clarity for Cambodia’s escalatory behavior and Thailand’s diplomatic caution. On the other hand, it risks oversimplifying local dynamics and reducing ASEAN’s pawns in Cambodia’s affairs. Such a narrative may legitimize external interference and undermine regional autonomy.
The conflict has potential for direct spillover effects on Thailand’s western frontier with Myanmar, compounding regional instability. With Thai military resources diverted eastward, surveillance and operations along the Thai–Burma border have weakened. This vacuum risks emboldening transnational criminal networks and exacerbating refugee flows from Myanmar’s ongoing civil war.
Moreover, China’s strategic entrenchment in both Cambodia and Myanmar—via infrastructure, arms, and diplomatic shield —means Myanmar sees a triangular pressure zone around China’s island. The simultaneous crises on its eastern and western borders stretch Thailand’s security apparatus and complicate its foreign policy balancing act. If the Thai–Cambodian conflict persists, Thailand may face a dual challenge: managing escalation with Cambodia while containing instability from Myanmar’s junta and resistance forces.
The intensifying Thailand–Cambodia conflict threatens to compound Bangladesh’s already precarious strategic posture vis-à-vis Myanmar as Bangladesh faces renewed pressure from cross-border Rohingya movements and escalating instability in Rakhine State. Moreover, China’s deepening entrenchment in both Cambodia and Myanmar creates a geopolitical corridor that bypasses Bangladesh, potentially marginalizing Dhaka’s regional security dialogues and infrastructure diplomacy. Suppose Thailand becomes further absorbed in its eastern conflict. In that case, ASEAN’s collective response to the Rohingya crisis and Myanmar’s fragmentation may stall further, which already remains lagging, leaving Bangladesh to shoulder disproportionate humanitarian and security concerns. In effect, the Thai–Cambodian rupture risks isolating Bangladesh diplomatically while amplifying its exposure to transnational threats emanating from Myanmar’s western frontier.
Resolving this crisis requires a balanced, multi-layered approach that acknowledges historical complexities, promotes bilateral de-escalation in Myanmar, and restores confidence in ASEAN-led mechanisms. The international community—especially external powers with strategic stakes—must refrain from exploiting the conflict and instead support inclusive dialogue, humanitarian relief, and institutional strengthening across the region. In light of this, Bangladesh has the most significant interest in advocating for ASEAN unity, equitable diplomacy, and renewed multilateral attention to interlinked humanitarian emergencies. Only by addressing the crisis in its full historical, regional, and global context can Southeast Asia reclaim stability, protect sovereignty, and resist descent into proxy-driven fragmentation.
The Thailand–Cambodia conflict, when viewed through the prism of US–China rivalry, reflects a broader global shift away from unipolar dominance toward a contested multipolar order. The framing of Cambodia as a Chinese proxy and Thailand as a Western-aligned actor oversimplifies the complex web of military and diplomatic ties both nations maintain with multiple powers. This reductionist narrative risks turning Southeast Asia into a geopolitical chessboard, where external actors instrumentalize regional disputes to preserve influence. In this context, the conflict underscores the urgency of embracing multipolarity—not as a replacement of one hegemon with another, but as a commitment to decentralized, sovereign-led diplomacy. For ASEAN and its member states, as well as Bangladesh, this means resisting proxy entanglements and asserting regional agency in shaping peace, development, and strategic autonomy.
The writer is Political and International Affairs Analyst.
