(Phnom Penh): As of July 27, 2025, the resumption of hostilities between Thailand and Cambodia, despite official declarations of an “immediate and unconditional” ceasefire, reflects a deeper breakdown in Southeast Asia’s ability to manage bilateral conflict. What was announced as a truce has not stopped the artillery, the airstrikes, or the displacement of civilians. The failure to implement the ceasefire is not merely a matter of delay. It reveals the structural weakness of verbal diplomacy when unaccompanied by enforcement mechanisms, independent monitoring, or institutional restraint.
On July 26, Cambodia announced its full acceptance of a ceasefire proposed by U.S. President Donald Trump, following parallel efforts by ASEAN Chair Anwar Ibrahim. Thailand’s acting prime minister reportedly agreed “in principle.” Yet within 24 hours, clashes resumed near Ta Muen Thom and Ta Krabey temples. According to field reports compiled by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA), more than 90,000 civilians have now been displaced from affected provinces. As of this writing, there is no signed agreement, no deployed observers, and no disengagement protocol between armed forces.
This is not new. Between 2008 and 2011, border tensions over Preah Vihear and nearby temples followed a familiar arc: ceasefire declarations made under international pressure, followed by tactical violations on the ground. Today, the regional environment is more complex, the institutional checks weaker, and the space for ambiguity narrower.
Verbal Ceasefire, Absent Mechanisms
What unfolded on July 26 was not a durable ceasefire but a symbolic gesture. As conflict analyst Kelly Greenhill has argued, symbolic resolutions often “mask the continuation of unresolved agendas behind performative diplomacy.” There is currently no ASEAN monitoring team in the field. No hotline or military contact group has been activated. And no UN peacekeeping mandate has been proposed.
Thailand’s internal dynamics may partly explain the disconnect. With a caretaker government in place and the military asserting operational autonomy, there is a credible risk of dual-track messaging; peace in diplomatic statements, pressure on the ground.
Cambodia’s leadership, by contrast, responded as one. Prime Minister Hun Manet’s rapid public acceptance of the ceasefire signaled strategic restraint, not capitulation. In an environment where perception often shapes policy outcomes, Cambodia has positioned itself as a rule-bound actor seeking de-escalation.
Controlling the Narrative
This positioning is not without effect. International media have increasingly highlighted the asymmetry of the conflict. Reuters reported on July 27 that “Thai strikes have continued despite diplomatic overtures, raising questions about Bangkok’s internal alignment.” BBC News noted that while “both sides accuse the other of escalation, the scale of Thai military operations has far exceeded Cambodian capabilities.”
Meanwhile, statements from the UN Secretary-General and ASEAN Secretariat have called for “immediate de-escalation, humanitarian access, and legal restraint.” These calls underscore the rising reputational costs for any actor that prolongs or intensifies the conflict.
Cambodia’s legal framing is also gaining traction. The government has accused Thailand of deploying cluster munitions, a potential breach of customary humanitarian law, even if Thailand is not party to the 2008 convention. Cultural sites such as Ta Krabey, part of Cambodia’s national identity and religious heritage, have suffered visible damage. Legal experts have begun advocating for provisional measures at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), citing the 2013 ruling that reaffirmed Cambodia’s territorial sovereignty in adjacent areas.
Implications for the Region
The conflict’s impact will not remain confined to the border. ASEAN’s inability to prevent escalation between two of its members undermines its central claim to regional peace architecture. If Thailand continues operations while publicly professing restraint, it risks eroding confidence in ASEAN mechanisms entirely.
Major powers, too, have interests at stake. Cambodia’s growing alignment with China through infrastructure and defense ties complicates perceptions of neutrality. Thailand, a long-standing U.S. ally, risks reputational damage if its actions are seen as undermining diplomacy. For now, both Beijing and Washington have called for de-escalation, but if the fighting continues, pressure will mount for stronger positions.
What Must Happen Now
If this ceasefire is to become more than a press release, three steps are essential:
1. Deploy independent observers under ASEAN or UN mandate, to verify compliance and document violations.
2. Formalize a ceasefire agreement, with mapped disengagement zones, agreed rules of engagement, and incident-reporting protocols.
3. Initiate legal monitoring, particularly around civilian displacement, weapons use, and destruction of cultural heritage.
Cambodia is not pursuing victory by force. It is pursuing survival by law, by diplomacy, and by strategic coherence. So far, that strategy is holding. But the longer the gap between rhetoric and reality persists, the greater the risk that another ceasefire becomes just another empty headline.
By Arnaud Darc, Co-Chair WGD, Advisor on Public–Private Policy Dialogue.
=FRESH NEWS
