Myanmar Spring Chronicle – July 24 Viewpoint
(MoeMaKa, July 25, 2025)
Thai–Cambodian Border Conflict and Its Potential Impact on Myanmar
On the morning of July 24, tensions between Thailand and Cambodia over a border dispute escalated into an armed clash, following a landmine explosion near the contested zone. Military forces from both sides had previously deployed along the border amid rising disagreements over land ownership.
The conflict centers around the Preah Vihear temple, a Hindu temple within Cambodian territory formerly under French colonial rule. Although the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled in 1962 that the temple belongs to Cambodia, Thailand never fully accepted the verdict.
Disputes over the 4.6 square kilometer area surrounding the temple resurfaced between 2008 and 2011, culminating in a brief but intense military clash in early 2011. The recent flare-up, after 14 years, comes after Cambodia reopened its ICJ complaint over the border demarcation, further straining tensions.
Complicating matters, a leaked phone call involving a Thai political leader discussing the border issue forced the current Thai prime minister to step aside, leaving the country in a politically unstable period. The clashes erupted amid this vacuum in leadership.
In contrast, Cambodia remains under the long-standing rule of the Hun Sen political dynasty, which has maintained power for nearly three decades. Some observers suggest the Cambodian leadership may be using the border conflict to stoke nationalist sentiment and consolidate internal power—a pattern reminiscent of Israel’s response to Hamas attacks, where external conflict was used to shore up waning domestic political support.
While the Thai-Cambodian border conflict is not expected to become a full-scale war like Russia–Ukraine, it may resemble limited, localized engagements similar to the India–Pakistan border skirmishes.
Implications for Myanmar
The question arises: How might this conflict affect Myanmar?
-
An estimated 4 to 6 million Myanmar nationals live in Thailand, both legally and illegally.
-
In Cambodia, the Myanmar population is much smaller.
-
Thailand’s economic and political stability is critical to Myanmar migrants, who dominate industries such as construction, agriculture, fishing, and factory labor.
Cambodian migrant workers are the second-largest group in Thailand after Myanmar nationals. The risk is that nationalist backlash or xenophobia could emerge in Thailand, targeting Cambodian workers—raising fears of ethnic discrimination that could eventually affect Myanmar migrants too.
In response, the National Unity Government (NUG) of Myanmar has issued a statement urging Myanmar people not to post or share comments on social media that could escalate tensions or appear to take sides in the Thai–Cambodian dispute.
Meanwhile, Myanmar’s military junta spokesperson stated to some media outlets that both sides in the Thai–Cambodian dispute should resolve their issues peacefully. This declaration has been met with ridicule among Myanmar’s public, given that the junta itself is embroiled in a civil war, facing widespread accusations of war crimes and repression.
ASEAN, Distraction, and Strategic Calculations
The junta may be hoping that the ASEAN bloc’s attention will be diverted by the Thai–Cambodian crisis, temporarily easing international pressure and allowing Myanmar to slip off the regional agenda.
Among the Myanmar public, opinions on the conflict vary:
-
Some dislike both Cambodia’s Hun Sen regime and Thailand’s military-dominated politics.
-
Others say if forced to choose, they would side with Thailand over Cambodia.
Such reactions highlight the fragmented perceptions of international actors within the Myanmar diaspora.
Ultimately, sustainable resolution of this border conflict will require legal arbitration through international courts and multilateral diplomacy—not nationalist propaganda or opportunistic militarism.
As the situation unfolds, the people of Myanmar should observe carefully and critically, recognizing when border conflicts are being used to mask internal political agendas or suppress democratic dissent under the guise of national unity.