Discouraged in Cambodia crisis, Thailand… a victim of power games
If Thailand fails to use the Cambodia crisis to reform and regain strength, it risks vanishing from the global stage, according to an article published by Krungthep Turakij on Tuesday.
- The resolution to the Thai-Cambodian conflict was driven not by the two nations themselves, but by external powers that Cambodia successfully drew into the dispute to gain an advantage.
- The United States and China exploited the crisis to advance their own strategic interests, with the US using trade tariffs to force a ceasefire and China intervening to counter American influence.
- Regional powers such as Malaysia also capitalised on the situation, with its prime minister boosting both his and his country’s image as a peacemaker.
- Ultimately, Thailand has been left isolated and under pressure — a victim of geopolitical manoeuvring in which major powers and neighbouring states pursued their own agendas at its expense.
I consider our country extremely unfortunate to be facing a conflict with Cambodia at such a time.
On the one hand, it may simply be a coincidence that perfectly benefits Cambodia.
On the other, we must accept that Thailand’s decline has reached the point of “bursting boils,” the inevitable result of neglect and failure across all elements of our society.
If we fail to use this crisis to revive or reform the nation—so that Thailand becomes strong enough to stand in the rapidly changing and fiercely competitive world—we will disappear permanently from the global radar.
The cruelty and complexity of today’s global context can clearly be seen in the Thai-Cambodian crisis. The resolution of the conflict did not arise from the efforts of the two nations themselves, but from Cambodia drawing major powers into the dispute to gain an advantage.
Meanwhile, those same powers exploited the situation to entrench themselves in Southeast Asia.
The ceasefire on July 28 was not achieved through bilateral talks, but through the United States using trade tariffs as leverage to pressure both Thailand and Cambodia.
When the General Border Committee (GBC) met on August 7, representatives from both the US and China attended as observers, applying a different form of pressure—particularly on Thailand.
No sooner had the applause for the ceasefire faded than US President Donald Trump claimed credit for bringing peace, even releasing casualty figures for Cambodian troops as proof of his success in halting bloodshed.
China, unwilling to allow greater US influence in the region where it holds vast interests, responded by stepping in as “big brother.”
Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi invited his Thai and Cambodian counterparts to a “tea gathering” on the sidelines of the Mekong-Lancang Cooperation meeting.
But rather than criticising Cambodia for clearly violating the agreement, Wang praised both sides—and even commended Phnom Penh’s handling of scam operations, despite China itself being a victim of cross-border “romance scams” from Cambodia.
Though China leans towards Cambodia, its economic interests still depend heavily on Thailand—particularly for trade and export routes to the US and the European Union.
In Cambodia, Beijing seeks to expand military influence through the Ream naval base and the joint “Golden Dragon” drills.
Should Thailand and Cambodia clash further, the US would seize the opportunity to strengthen its role in Cambodia at China’s expense. Hence Beijing is forced to act like a Thai tycoon, “loving all parties” and keeping both sides close.
Malaysia’s role must not be overlooked. Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim hosted the first two emergency meetings to halt violence between Thailand and Cambodia.
The outcome was more than just a ceasefire—it enhanced Malaysia’s image as ASEAN chair and regional leader.
Cambodia has even proposed awarding Anwar the Ramon Magsaysay Prize, Asia’s equivalent of the Nobel Peace Prize.
Riding on this diplomatic success, Anwar also expressed interest in mediating Thailand’s southern border conflict. If successful, his reputation as a peacemaker would soar, boosting his political support particularly in Malaysia’s northern states bordering Thailand (Kelantan, Kedah, Perak, Perlis and possibly Terengganu), which are strongholds of the opposition Malaysian Islamic Party (PAS).
Malaysia has played mediator before, notably in the Mindanao conflict in the Philippines, and is also expected to play a role in Myanmar’s election later this year.
Should Anwar, as ASEAN chair, help steer Myanmar towards elections and a peace process, it would cement both his and Malaysia’s standing on the international peace stage.
This spotlight once shone on Thailand—whose long border with Myanmar once made it a key player in fostering peace there. That hope is now gone.
Cambodia, despite losing militarily, has gained the image of a “good child” in the eyes of major powers.
Thailand fights on wearily alone, it faces pressure from both powerful nations and neighbouring states, each pursuing its own interests.
Cambodia, meanwhile, has skilfully used those same powers and neighbours to exert even greater pressure back on Thailand.
In the end, the so-called peace is fragile, built on the shifting interests of major powers and ASEAN rivals like Malaysia.
The pressing question is: what has Thailand actually gained, apart from chasing fake news and indulging in a hollow nationalism that offers no real security?
By Pakorn Puengnetr in Krungthep Turakij on August 19
