As tensions along the Cambodia–Thailand border rise once again following a landmine explosion that injured three Thai soldiers, U.S. officials have quickly stepped in, calling on both countries to maintain stability and respect the peace agreement.

A spokesperson for the U.S. Department of State told Reuters earlier this week that Washington was “gathering more information about the recent landmine incident” and urged both sides to “maintain stability and uphold the peace agreement signed on October 26, 2025, in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, under the witness of U.S. President Donald Trump.”
At the same time, The Washington Post quoted a senior U.S. official who said that “President Donald Trump remains firmly committed to ending violence and expects both the Cambodian and Thai governments to fully honor their pledges to end the conflict.”

These swift reactions from senior U.S. officials and the State Department came shortly after Thai Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul ordered his Defense Ministry to suspend “all peace agreement implementations with Cambodia indefinitely” — even declaring publicly that “peace is over.”

*America’s Three-Layer Diplomacy: Subtle Words with Strong Weight
The United States’ rapid response — from both senior Washington officials and the State Department — is widely seen as a form of three-layer diplomacy, carefully designed to send a message without escalating tensions.

Layer One:

The statement by the State Department spokesperson served as the official message — neutral in tone, focused on preserving stability and calling for adherence to the peace deal. Its purpose was to reaffirm the U.S. as a trusted mediator while avoiding direct blame toward either side, be it Thailand or Cambodia.

Layer Two:

The remarks quoted by The Washington Post from a senior U.S. official carried stronger political weight. By emphasizing that President Trump was “personally committed to ending violence,” Washington signaled that this peace agreement was not just a diplomatic formality but part of Trump’s foreign policy legacy. The subtext: any attempt to abandon the deal would have consequences for U.S.–Thai relations.

Layer Three:

The combination of official and indirect messages creates subtle but effective political pressure. It allows the U.S. to remind Thailand that Washington is closely monitoring the situation, while avoiding a direct public confrontation. This quiet but firm diplomacy helps preserve the atmosphere for future negotiations and keeps both parties accountable.

Taken together, these layers demonstrate that the U.S. is employing a multi-tiered diplomatic strategy — calm but firm — to prevent Thailand from undermining the peace process. It is diplomacy with restraint, but with unmistakable weight, reminding all sides that international commitments cannot be casually abandoned.

*Landmine Explosion in “Eagle Field”: A Small Incident That Revives Old Scars of War

The incident that reignited border tensions occurred on November 10, when three Thai soldiers were injured after stepping on an old landmine in the Eagle Field area along the Cambodia–Thailand border. The area is known as a former battlefield still scarred by nearly three decades of Cambodia’s civil war.

This area remains part of the unresolved border zone under the Joint Boundary Commission (JBC), where both sides are tasked with demarcation based on colonial maps from 1904 and 1907. Cambodia’s CMAC, along with HALO Trust and MAG, has identified Eagle Field and surrounding areas as among the most mine-contaminated zones in Southeast Asia.

Thailand’s accusation that Cambodian troops planted “new mines” was swiftly rejected by Phnom Penh. The Cambodian Foreign Ministry reaffirmed that the blast site lies within long-known minefields from the civil war and that, as a party to the Ottawa Convention, Cambodia has never — and will never — use new anti-personnel mines.
Phnom Penh further reiterated its “full commitment to the complete implementation of the Kuala Lumpur Peace Agreement.”

*Anutin’s “Peace Suspension” — A Nationalist Game for Political Gain

Thai Prime Minister Anutin’s heated reaction after the landmine incident appears less a genuine policy move and more a calculated nationalist performance. Analysts in Bangkok note that his declaration of an “indefinite suspension” of peace cooperation with Cambodia is a deliberate strategy aimed at consolidating domestic support amid growing pressure from the military and hardline nationalist factions.

Observers warn that suspending a peace agreement recognized internationally and witnessed by the United States could carry serious diplomatic and economic consequences for Thailand. Such actions risk damaging Thailand’s global image and undermining investor confidence at a time when the new government is struggling to stabilize its fragile economy.

*Anutin’s Nationalist Balancing Act Could Become a Self-Inflicted Weapon

Anutin’s claim that “peace is over” is not a genuine withdrawal from the peace process, but rather a political spectacle designed to showcase toughness and patriotism for domestic consumption. The move reflects an effort to strengthen his own nationalist credentials while deflecting mounting pressure from military hardliners and populist groups demanding a harsher stance toward Cambodia.

However, such “political theater” carries high risks. Analysts caution that undermining a peace deal endorsed by the U.S. and recognized as an international agreement could gravely damage Thailand’s diplomatic credibility. It may shake confidence within the global community, tarnish Thailand’s reputation, and unsettle international investors — all at a time when the government is striving to restore public trust and economic stability.

In short, Anutin’s nationalist play may win him applause at home, but it risks becoming a self-inflicted diplomatic weapon that isolates Thailand on the international stage.

*Conclusion: Quiet Diplomacy vs. Noisy Politics

The current situation between Thailand and Cambodia demonstrates that the Kuala Lumpur Peace Agreement is far from a temporary document — it is a binding commitment backed by international legitimacy. The U.S. response, though measured and quiet, carries significant diplomatic force, signaling that Washington will not allow a peace it helped broker to be destroyed by domestic political games.
For Thailand, using nationalism as a political tool may yield short-term popularity, but it risks long-term damage to its credibility and partnerships. For Cambodia, maintaining calm, restraint, and adherence to international agreements remains a wise and principled path — a reflection of leadership that values peace over provocation.

Ultimately, peace is not broken yet — but it is being tested by political opportunism. The United States’ latest statements send a clear message: the Kuala Lumpur Peace Agreement remains an international commitment that no party can betray.