Myanmar Spring Chronicle – July 28 Viewpoint
(MoeMaKa, July 29, 2025)
Who Benefits from the Thailand–Cambodia Border Conflict?
After decades of unresolved border disputes between Thailand and Cambodia, military clashes finally erupted in recent days—though on a limited scale. Beginning on Thursday morning, both countries exchanged artillery, small arms fire, fighter jet attacks, and rocket salvos, with fighting reported in about six locations along the border.
These clashes have continued for four days, and on Monday, July 28, the two countries are scheduled to meet for talks in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Some reports suggest that the meeting is taking place due to pressure from U.S. President [unspecified], while others frame it as a diplomatic effort within ASEAN, as both Thailand and Cambodia are member states and Malaysia is the current ASEAN chair.
Although troop movements and buildups have been ongoing for several months, observers now question—why has the conflict erupted at this particular time?
Thai Deputy Prime Minister and acting Culture Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra was involved in a phone call last month with Cambodian leader Hun Sen about the border issue. Not long after, the recording of the call was leaked—apparently from the Cambodian side. This raised questions about why Hun Sen would choose to damage a long-standing personal relationship with the Shinawatra family, with whom he had enjoyed close ties.
The Thai side alleges that the leak was retaliation for Thai government efforts to crack down on online scam networks and to regulate casinos—moves that may have directly or indirectly affected Cambodian interests. Some believe Hun Sen was attempting to escalate the border issue in response.
From the Thai side, this conflict is happening amid domestic political turmoil: Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin has been suspended, and a caretaker government is in place. That a border skirmish would erupt during this political instability raises suspicions that it may be politically motivated.
The leaked audio includes Paetongtarn saying she had no power to dismiss a military commander involved in the border issue. This suggests she had no intention of provoking a military conflict. Yet the Thai military, amid growing political chaos, may have advanced the border dispute to showcase strength and fill a power vacuum.
Such a maneuver could create a public image that civilian politicians are incapable of defending the nation’s sovereignty, thereby bolstering the military’s standing. This strategy would have required Cambodian cooperation, suggesting that Hun Sen—whose son is now prime minister—also sought to project strength and nationalist leadership. Thus, both sides may have had internal political motivations for escalating the dispute.
Rather than negotiate with Thailand, Cambodia may have deliberately brought the issue back to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and bolstered its troop presence near the disputed area. For Thailand, domestic instability may have provided Hun Sen with an opportunity to reignite an old issue, especially at a time when Thailand’s political leadership is divided.
It’s possible that both sides escalated the situation to gain popular support and political advantage. Given the long history of the dispute, some suspect that it was revived deliberately and opportunistically.
The Thai military may have seized this opportunity to reassert its role as the nation’s protector, while portraying any loss of territory as unacceptable. Yet in practice, the military clash may not have unfolded as Hun Sen anticipated. Despite Thailand’s stronger military, neither side wants to be drawn into a protracted war. Avoiding a full-scale conflict seems to be in everyone’s interest.
As a result, by the fifth day of fighting, both sides agreed to meet in Malaysia and committed to an unconditional ceasefire.
Tens of thousands of people have fled their homes on both sides of the border. Reports say many Cambodian migrant workers in Thailand—estimated in the hundreds of thousands—have also returned to Cambodia across the border.
Caught in the middle of power games played by militaries, authoritarian leaders, and politicians, it is the ordinary people of both nations who suffer deaths, displacement, and long-term trauma. For people in Myanmar observing this conflict, it is a stark reminder that neighboring governments often act based on self-interest. The current situation may also reveal how little genuine goodwill those countries may have toward Myanmar’s own crisis.