9 pathways to end the vicious Thailand-Cambodia enmity

On the 75th anniversary of Thailand and Cambodia’s diplomatic relations, this should be a year of celebration and friendship. Instead, bilateral ties have run aground. They are overshadowed by tension, mistrust, hate speech, and talk of war.

The 798-kilometer common border has once again become a flashpoint. The current situation is deteriorating dangerously. Armed conflict must be avoided.

It is time for cooler heads to prevail. Bangkok and Phnom Penh can turn the page on decades of animosity.

But they must take urgent and deliberate steps to de-escalate tensions and build a forward-looking relationship rooted in mutual respect. Nine pathways could guide this journey.

First, the family ties between the Hun and Shinawatra families should not be weaponized. One of the most corrosive dynamics in Thai-Cambodian relations today is the entanglement of personal and political interests.

The leaked phone call between former Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen and Thai Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra, daughter of former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, on 15 June, was a case in point.

It laid bare the personal calculations behind bilateral gestures. Paetongtarn has since been under intense pressure to resign.

In fact, personal connections between powerful families can be an asset — but only when channeled toward constructive ends.

If exploited for domestic or personal gain, or used as political leverage, they will only inflame distrust and deepen divisions.

Second, the border must return to the status quo. The livelihoods of thousands in border communities depend on stable, predictable cross-border routines.

Abrupt and confusing changes to checkpoint operating hours — such as the recent adjustment at the Poipet-Aranyaprathet crossing — have disrupted daily commerce and stoked suspicion.

The normalcy of everyday life must be preserved.

Clear communication and a mutual commitment to maintaining open crossings are essential.

This point of contention must be resolved. Cambodia has blamed Thailand for initiating the closure — an allegation Thailand vehemently denies.

Third, existing mechanisms must be used to resolve disputes.

Thailand and Cambodia already have the institutional architecture to manage border issues — notably the General Border Committee (GBC), Regional Border Committee (RBC), and Joint Boundary Commission (JBC).

These platforms must be reactivated and empowered to find technical, legal, and practical solutions to ongoing disputes. Reinventing the wheel will only waste time and political capital.

Cambodia has already filed a case with the International Court of Justice, which Thailand strongly opposes.

Fourth, military de-escalation in contested zones, such as Chong Sangam (Sisaket-Chong Bok), must continue. The most immediate priority is to prevent further confrontation.

Between late 2024 and early 2025, there were activities at Chong An Ma and Prasat Don Tuan.

In February, Cambodian villagers protested and sang nationalist songs at Prasat Ta Muen Thom, triggering tensions.

Subsequent clashes occurred near Ton Phaya Sataban and Hill 745.

Throughout Thai-Cambodian history, even minor incidents between border patrols have sparked disproportionate crises.

Both sides must therefore have a clear understanding of protocols and zones to avoid armed clashes.

Fifth, responsible media must reject nationalist mudslinging. In both Thailand and Cambodia, numerous media outlets have succumbed to nationalist fervor, portraying the other side as aggressors.

Social media and influencers on both sides have had field days spinning updates. Thai media, which is relatively free, occasionally ventures into slanderous territory.

Journalists and editors must recognize their responsibility in shaping public opinion. In Cambodia, however, former Prime Minister Hun Sen continues to dominate the discourse.

Sixth, efforts must be made to resolve the map issue. One of the longest-standing thorns in bilateral relations is the use and interpretation of colonial-era maps.

Both countries refer to the Franco-Siamese Treaties of 1904–1907, which established the border. Yet technical discrepancies and cartographic ambiguities persist.

Thailand and Cambodia must commit to a joint technical process.

They could also learn from other ASEAN members that have faced similar colonial cartographic legacies. Collective learning and cooperation could provide a path forward.

Seventh, both countries should quietly consider third-party facilitation — without internationalizing the issue.

While Thailand remains resistant to internationalizing what it considers a bilateral matter, it may be time to accept discreet third-party facilitation.

Whether through ASEAN, a respected neutral figure, or a technical panel, the aim should be to provide space for dialogue without raising diplomatic stakes.

Confidential facilitation may succeed where public negotiation cannot.

Eighth, cross-border criminal activities must be addressed seriously. These include illicit gambling, scam call centers, trafficking, human smuggling, and other transnational crimes.

They should not be conflated with national border tensions.

These are distinct challenges, best addressed through cooperation between law enforcement and technical agencies. Joint task forces or expert working groups could deliver meaningful results without politicizing the process.

Finally, there is an urgent need to promote grassroots dialogue across the border. Beyond official diplomacy, people living along the border are essential to sustaining peace.

Many families, traders, and workers cross the boundary daily. Facilitating dialogue among local commanders, community leaders, and civil society groups can foster understanding and reduce the risk of miscommunication escalating into violence.

These “people-to-people” ties are often more resilient than offi cial relations.

Thailand and Cambodia can break the cycle of hostility — but they must make a choice: Diplomacy over provocation. Dialogue over brinkmanship. Cooperation over ego.

These pathways are not new, but they can help the two countries move beyond the dark shadow of history.

After 75 years of diplomatic ties, it is time to write a new chapter. Otherwise, another generation will be burdened with the same unresolved problems.