Nationalist agendas fuelled the border fight between Thailand and Cambodia

On the morning of July 24, Thai and Cambodian troops clashed at multiple locations along their 800-km border. Following five days of fighting that resulted in 43 deaths (including civilians) and the displacement of more than 300,000 people, both sides arrived at a ceasefire that took effect on July 29. Mediated by ASEAN chair Malaysia, with help from China, and under the looming threat of U.S. tariffs, the truce appeared to largely hold despite claims of breach by both parties.

After the agreement came Cambodia’s call on July 31 for the release of its 20 soldiers detained for crossing into Thai-held territory after the truce. Bangkok has acceded, but only upon the fulfilment of legal procedures — proof that the peace deal, despite putting a temporary halt to the fighting, is a minor respite at best. For the roots of the conflict can be traced back to pre-colonial times; and with domestic politics, international scam centres and nationalism coming to the mix, multiple interests are at stake, complicating matters further.

Rise of tensions

Prior to the latest clashes was the May 28 incident in which a Cambodian soldier was killed. Tensions ran high, forcing the then-Thai Prime Minister, Paetongtarn Shinawatra, to ring up strongman and Cambodia’s former Premier Hun Sen on June 15 to placate the situation. As a leaked version of their conversation showed, Ms. Paetongtarn, whose family shares close ties with the Cambodian leader, sounded deferential by referring to him as “uncle” and labelling a Thai military General as “opponent”. The ensuing fallout, which cost Ms. Paetongtarn her job, is widely believed to have been orchestrated by Mr. Hun Sen to deflect attention from the international cyberscam centres operating in his country.

Apart from inviting global scrutiny, these scam offices are also alleged to be run by the Cambodian government’s allies and possess links to China — Phnom Penh’s biggest benefactor.

Another incentive for Mr. Hun Sen to stir the pot is to whip up nationalist sentiments and boost the credentials of his son Hun Manet, sworn to office in 2024, 33 years after his father relinquished power.

For Mr. Hun Sen — who once called Ms. Paetongtarn’s father and former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra his ‘god brother’ — Thailand, with its delicate political landscape owing to the presence of the monarchy and the military, presents itself as a soft target. Separately, Mr. Hun Sen is also accused by his opponents of adopting a soft stance towards Vietnam, whose Army in 1979 overthrew the Khmer Rouge and installed the 72-year-old Cambodian People’s Party in power.

Also on Mr. Hun Sen’s mind is the Thai government’s proposed casino legalisation Bill, which may adversely impact Cambodia’s gambling sector. Thus, bringing down the Shinawatras’ Pheu Thai party is a one-stop solution to all his problems and seemed plausible too, given that, with Ms. Paetongtarn suspended from duty and Mr. Thaksin facinglese majestecharges for “insulting the monarchy”, the Shinawatras are already out of favour with the Thai citizens.

Nationalist rhetoric

However, nationalist rhetoric is not restricted to Cambodia alone but is an overarching sentiment in Thailand, too.

A 2003 remark by a Thai actress, in which she said Cambodia had ‘stolen’ Angkor Wat and that she would not visit the country until the monument was returned, sparked anti-Thai riots.

Taken in isolation, the statement may not carry much weight. But when placed in the larger context, it reflects the overall mood of a country, which, while priding itself as the only one in the region to be not subjected to Western colonisation, still perceives itself as a victim.

This is because history has been equally unkind to both Cambodia and Thailand. Between the 7th century and the 14th century, the Khmer Empire ruled over a vast tract of the mainland in Southeast Asia. During its heyday in the 12th century, the Khmer empire comprised Cambodia as well as parts of present-day northeastern Thailand and southern Vietnam. The power structure was based on the Mandala system, which consisted of concentric circles of centre-peripheral relations. Weak territoriality and a loose central authority marked the setup, writes Path Kosal in a chapter in the book,Cambodia’s Foreign Relations in Regional and Global Contexts. This ensured that Angkor kings were able to rule unchallenged over their allies and vassals who presided over the periphery independently.

Trouble began to brew for the Khmer empire from the time of Angkor’s fall in 1431. It faced threats from Siam (Thailand), which began conquering land from the northeast, and Annam (Vietnam) from the southeast; to the point that King Norodom turned Cambodia into a French protectorate in 1863 in the hope of security.

While Cambodia’s apprehensions of shrinking boundaries and constant threats have roots in pre-colonial times, Thailand’s fears partially stem from the happenings that followed the establishment of the French protectorate. Though the multiple treaties signed between the French and Siamese in 1904 and 1907 serve as the bases for the present-day border between Cambodia and Thailand, many discrepancies exist to date; one of the prime examples being the tussle over the Preah Vihear temple — a 12th-century monument claimed by both countries. While the temple and a 1 sq. km area around it were ruled in Cambodia’s favour by the International Court of Justice, a 4.6 sq. km patch near it is still contested territory. The verdict spurred a conflict between the two nations over the area in 2011, resulting in 28 casualties, including both military personnel and civilians.

Preah Vihear is merely emblematic of the crisis. Similar temples, such as the Ta Moan Thom around which the latest shootout transpired, exist as bones of contention. The temples were built during the reign of the Khmer Empire. As is the case with empires, they rise and fall. And wars fought among the neighbouring kingdoms have seen the borders shift and temples change ownership.

Like in many other conflicts, here too, the fire may have been lit during the time of conquests and colonialism.

However, the nationalists and the ruling class of both countries – Cambodia has an authoritarian regime and Thailand’s is a coup-prone establishment — have seen to it that the flames were fanned throughout history to suit them.

Published – August 02, 2025 05:30 am IST