(Phnom Penh): When Thai Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul declared that he was “suspending the peace agreement,” regional media and international observers were shocked. Many immediately questioned whether the hard-won Kuala Lumpur Peace Agreement—signed in the presence of U.S. President Donald Trump and Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim—could truly be derailed by a single landmine incident along the border.

But an even more important question quickly followed:
Was Anutin’s claim of “suspending peace” a real shift in Thailand’s policy,
or simply a political maneuver aimed at diverting the attention of nationalist groups at home?

Anwar Ibrahim’s intervention clarifies the confusion
A swift intervention by Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, the current ASEAN Chair, quickly brought clarity to this political drama. In his official public statement, Anwar confirmed that both Cambodian Prime Minister Samdech Moha Borvor Thipadei Hun Manet and Thai Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul had “reaffirmed their commitment” to implementing the Kuala Lumpur Joint Declaration.

That confirmation sends a clear signal:
the peace framework agreed in Kuala Lumpur has never been suspended in any legal or diplomatic sense.
What Anutin said earlier about “suspending peace” should therefore be understood as part of Thailand’s domestic political management and a bargaining tactic, not as a formal withdrawal from the peace architecture agreed in Kuala Lumpur.

Anutin’s “suspension” rhetoric as a tool of domestic politics
Thailand’s political landscape is still heavily shaped by three powerful forces: the military, royalist institutions, and hardline nationalists. Whenever an incident occurs—such as a landmine explosion, even if it appears to be caused by old, legacy mines—Thai leaders are immediately confronted with internal pressure. They are pushed to adopt a tough public stance and to speak as though they are defending “Thai interests” in the strongest possible terms.

Modern Thai political history has shown that some prime ministers have lost power simply because they failed to satisfy the demands of nationalist and establishment factions. Against that backdrop, it is not surprising that Anutin chose language portraying Thailand as a “victim” or claiming to “suspend peace.” These are not neutral phrases; they are carefully chosen political tools, meant to shore up support at home and protect his own position.

In that sense, Anutin’s rhetoric is less about the reality on the ground, and more about staging a performance for domestic audiences.

Anwar Ibrahim’s statement quietly contradicts Thailand’s narrative

Anwar Ibrahim’s public statement effectively contradicts Thailand’s “suspension” story without using confrontational language. Referring to his direct contacts with both Hun Manet and Anutin, Anwar explained that:
both leaders provided constructive views and reaffirmed their commitment to continue resolving issues peacefully, in line with the understandings reached under the Kuala Lumpur Peace Agreement.

Within this clarification lie three crucial points:
1. Both prime ministers reaffirmed their commitment – not their withdrawal.
2. Both sides agreed to continue resolving issues through peaceful means.
3. The Kuala Lumpur Peace Agreement/Joint Declaration remains the framework that both Cambodia and Thailand must continue to implement.
These three elements make it clear that Thailand cannot simply walk away from the Kuala Lumpur peace framework, and that nothing has been “suspended” in the sense recognized by international law or diplomacy.

The Kuala Lumpur Agreement is backed by key international witnesses
The Kuala Lumpur Joint Declaration is not an ordinary bilateral memo that Thailand can casually downgrade through political rhetoric. Even if Bangkok tries to label it merely as a “joint declaration” to reduce its legal weight, in practice it functions as a peace agreement with international backing.

It was concluded in the presence of, and is politically supported by:
• The President of the United States, and
• The Prime Minister of Malaysia as ASEAN Chair,
• Alongside other foreign observers.
Thailand is fully aware that any attempt to violate or withdraw from this agreement would be seen as a breach of trust toward the international community, especially toward the United States and ASEAN. In political terms, this document is not something that can be dismissed or downgraded at will; it carries significant diplomatic value and moral authority.

International pressure pushes Anutin back onto the Kuala Lumpur roadmap
In recent days, Cambodia has faced a series of accusations and repeated acts of provocation from the Thai side. Not only did Thailand violate the situation on the ground, but it also told the world that it was the “victim” — even going so far as to threaten to “suspend peace” with Cambodia. However, after Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim released the details of his discussions with both prime ministers, the talk of “suspending peace” quickly evaporated.

However, once Anwar Ibrahim publicly shared the substance of his conversations with both prime ministers, the phrase “suspend peace” effectively evaporated from the serious diplomatic discourse.

According to Anwar’s explanation, both leaders did only one thing: they reaffirmed their commitment to fully implement the Kuala Lumpur framework. That includes obligations already agreed upon by the technical teams of both countries, particularly the withdrawal of heavy weapons and other sequenced steps along the border.

This outcome shows clearly that Anwar’s shuttle diplomacy has pushed Anutin back onto the original implementation path set out in Kuala Lumpur.

In his social media post, Anwar went further, stating that:
• Malaysia reaffirmed its position that friendship and the ceasefire between the two countries must be further strengthened, in line with the agreement concluded in Kuala Lumpur last month.
• Malaysia stands ready to continue playing the role of facilitator in guiding both sides toward lasting peace.
He also noted that both prime ministers had expressed appreciation for Malaysia’s stance and its responsibility—not only as ASEAN Chair, but also as a close friend and neighbor committed to regional peace.

Anwar concluded with a clear call: both countries must continue to demonstrate the determination and courage needed to restore stability along the border, for long-term peace in the region and for the safety of their peoples.

Conclusion
At first hearing, Anutin’s announcement of a “suspension of peace” may have sounded dramatic—even alarming. But in reality, it was little more than domestic political theater and a negotiation tactic, not a substantive policy shift.

The intervention of the ASEAN Chair has made it clear that Cambodia and Thailand have not suspended the peace process, and that both leaders have now reaffirmed their obligation to implement the Kuala Lumpur Joint Declaration/Peace Agreement.
In the end, this renewed commitment does not belong to one side alone.

It is a shared responsibility to uphold peace, stability, and long-term security for the peoples of both countries.