(Phnom Penh): When insecurity erupts in a region, the hope of many people naturally turns to ASEAN, widely regarded as both a diplomatic platform and a regional custodian of peace in Southeast Asia, to intervene or exert pressure to halt violence.

For Cambodia, however, the question is not merely “What can ASEAN do?”—it is a far more painful one: Why must a country that endured nearly three decades of war and violence, and only achieved full peace at the end of 1998, once again be forced to hear the sound of bombs in a century where disputes should be resolved by law, not by force?

On 22 December 2025, while the ASEAN Foreign Ministers’ Meeting was underway in Kuala Lumpur, ASEAN’s diplomatic appeals were drowned out by the thunder of F-16 fighter jets dropping bombs on Cambodian territory. Across Cambodia’s Military Region 5, the sounds of heavy artillery, advancing tanks, and aerial attacks by Thai forces erupted from the early hours of the morning.

These events clearly demonstrate that ASEAN’s pressure has limits, both structurally and in political reality. ASEAN is a diplomatic forum for appeals and mediation—it is not a body with coercive authority capable of forcing any party to halt acts of aggression. At stake here is not only ASEAN’s effectiveness, but the protection of peace for a small nation’s people—a people who have already paid an enormous price for war and who refuse to see their painful history repeated.

ASEAN’s Structure: Diplomatic Power, Not Coercive Power

ASEAN’s core principles are founded on non-interference, consensus-based decision-making, and the peaceful settlement of disputes. These principles are vital for maintaining regional stability. However, they reveal clear limitations when a member state abandons diplomacy and instead chooses military force to violate the sovereignty of a neighboring country.

In the real context of the Cambodia–Thailand conflict, even as ASEAN seeks ways to end violence, the organization lacks enforcement mechanisms to compel any party to stop military attacks. ASEAN has no sanctions regime, no binding decision-making authority, and no intervention force of its own. What it can do—at most—is issue appeals, warnings, and expressions of concern through diplomatic language. This reality raises a pressing question for Cambodian victims: What can ASEAN do beyond issuing appeals to protect the peace of a country that seeks development rather than war, while facing aggression from Thailand—a larger country with a stronger economy, a bigger population, and sophisticated political tactics aimed at rebranding itself internationally from aggressor to victim?

In such circumstances, the country suffering most is not Thailand, but Cambodia—a nation that has chosen restraint over armed retaliation and continues to hope that the world will stand on the side of law and justice, rather than violence justified by sheer power.

Is Cambodia Hopeless Without ASEAN Pressure?

Thailand’s aggression against Cambodia—occurring even during an ASEAN meeting—does not signal that Cambodia has reached a dead end. Instead, it shows that ASEAN diplomacy is not a “red line” for Thailand. Thailand does not fear ASEAN appeals because ASEAN lacks coercive authority and possesses no mechanism to impose economic or military sanctions on a member state that violates another’s sovereignty.

Nevertheless, this does not mean Cambodia is without hope. On the contrary, it offers a crucial lesson: Cambodia must not tie its fate solely to ASEAN diplomacy. ASEAN remains important for documenting facts, creating diplomatic records, and demonstrating to the world which party seeks peace and which rejects it. But ASEAN alone cannot silence guns.

For Cambodia, the way forward lies in a comprehensive and lawful strategy with international weight, including:
- Strengthening the use of international law and multilateral mechanisms beyond ASEAN;
- Continuously presenting evidence of aggression and its impact on civilian lives to the international community;
- Upholding the right to lawful self-defense;
- Raising the political cost of aggression until it becomes an unbearable burden for the violator.

In short, ASEAN diplomacy has limits—but Cambodia’s pursuit of justice does not. ASEAN may not be the final answer, but it is not the end of Cambodia’s diplomatic path either.

Peace Is Not Weakness: An Appeal from a Nation Scarred by War

If the world wishes to understand why Cambodia “pleads” for peace, it must first understand that Cambodia does not speak of peace lightly. The Cambodian people have already endured the devastation of nearly 30 years of civil war and profound human suffering. The peace achieved at the end of 1998 was not a gift—it was earned through blood, tears, and the sacrifices of an entire nation.

That is why Cambodia asks the world not for sympathy, but for clear-eyed recognition of reality. Cambodia does not want war to return to the lives of its people. It does not want Cambodian children to hear bombs instead of school lessons. It does not want families fleeing their homes instead of living normal lives. And it does not want national reconstruction—only just beginning—to be shattered by renewed conflict.

Cambodia therefore needs peace—and needs the world, including ASEAN, to help protect peace by refusing to ignore aggression. Supporting Cambodia is not about choosing political sides; it is about choosing principles:
- The principle that force cannot create legitimacy;
- The principle that small states must not be violated by larger ones;
- And the principle that peace must be defended before it is destroyed.

Conclusion

The Cambodia–Thailand conflict in its current context is not evidence of Cambodia’s failure, but a clear demonstration of the real limits of ASEAN diplomacy when confronting a state that chooses force over international law. When ASEAN’s role is confined to appeals rather than coercion, Cambodia must recognize that peace cannot be secured by waiting for ASEAN’s diplomatic voice alone.

Cambodia’s pursuit of justice depends on a combination of international law, factual evidence, multilateral diplomacy, and lawful self-defense. History has shown that larger powers do not always prevail over smaller nations. For Cambodia—a country united in purpose and committed to national sacrifice—standing firmly on truth, patience, and a clear strategy remains a powerful force capable of winning sustained international support.

ASEAN may not be able to stop the guns immediately, but it cannot erase Cambodia’s rights or its claim to justice. And as long as Cambodia stands on law and truth, aggression—no matter how powerful the aggressor—can never become legitimacy, nor can it extinguish justice.