(Phnom Penh): Wars never end by accident. Nor do they end through mere diplomatic appeals, verbal warnings, or phone calls. Throughout international political history, wars end only when certain conditions are met.
In the current Cambodia–Thailand conflict, the most pressing questions for the Cambodian public are:
“When will this bloodshed end?” and “What will the international community actually do to make it stop?”
History shows that there are only four principal pathways through which wars and medium-scale conflicts have ended. Understanding these pathways is essential to determining which road Cambodia can and should take—and which it must never take, based on historical experience and proven strategies for ending wars.
Path One: Ending the War through Genuine International Pressure
This is the pathway by which wars end when major powers and the international community move beyond rhetoric and impose real political, economic, and diplomatic costs on the aggressor.
International history provides clear evidence that major wars and political crises have ended through this mechanism:
- In Serbia, during the Balkan conflicts of the early 1990s, the war was brought to an end in 1995 under intense international pressure, including sanctions and enforced compliance with international decisions.
- The Iran–Iraq War did not end through military victory by either side, but through sustained pressure from the United Nations, which convinced both parties that continuing the war would be more costly than accepting a ceasefire.
- South Africa’s apartheid system collapsed not through internal warfare alone, but through overwhelming international pressure—sanctions, diplomatic isolation, and economic exclusion—that made the regime unsustainable.
History demonstrates a consistent lesson: aggressor states respond to costs, not to empty appeals. When the price of continuing war outweighs its perceived benefits, the war begins to move toward its end.
For Cambodia, this means the war will start to end the day the world makes Thailand understand that continuing aggression is more costly than stopping it. This is the most realistic and achievable path for Cambodia.
Path Two: Ending the War through Internationalization
The second pathway emerges when a conflict can no longer be contained as a bilateral issue and becomes a global concern.
When a conflict is brought before international mechanisms—such as the United Nations, ASEAN, or international courts—the aggressor loses critical strategic advantages:
- Attacks on civilians become a global humanitarian issue.
- The destruction of ancient temples becomes a crime against humanity’s shared heritage.
- Disinformation becomes harder to sustain once third parties are formally involved.
This is precisely why aggressor states often fear third-party involvement and attempt to block internationalization.
This pathway has precedent:
- Cambodia successfully pursued internationalization in the Preah Vihear Temple cases before the International Court of Justice in 1962 and 2013.
- The Kosovo conflict (1998–1999) ended following internationalization and external intervention.
- East Timor achieved peace only after the United Nations intervened following international pressure.
This explains why Thailand consistently resists third-party involvement: internationalization strips away unilateral control and exposes unlawful conduct.
Path Three: Ending the War through Prolonged Attrition
This is the worst possible pathway.
Under this scenario, wars drag on until both sides are exhausted—leaving massive civilian casualties, economic collapse, destroyed heritage, and long-term state fragility. Wars end not through resolution, but through exhaustion and fragmentation.
Historical examples include:
- Syria, where war has persisted for over 13 years.
- Afghanistan, particularly between 1979 and 1989, when prolonged conflict exhausted the Soviet Union.
- Yemen, where war has dragged on for more than a decade.
This pathway never produces genuine peace. It produces ruins, trauma, and lost generations.
Cambodia must not—and will not—enter this path, because it leads to national devastation.
Path Four: Ending the War through Surrender
This pathway represents the loss of sovereignty and national dignity.
While Thailand might theoretically choose surrender, Cambodia cannot. Cambodian history has never accepted peace at the cost of sovereignty, nor is surrender a viable or acceptable option for the nation.
Cambodia cannot trade national survival for temporary military outcomes.
Why Cambodia Will Not Choose Paths Three or Four
The answer lies in Cambodia’s own historical experience—particularly in the nearly three decades of civil war that were successfully ended under the leadership and strategy of Hun Sen.
His greatest achievement was ending war without destroying the nation, through the Win-Win Policy, preserving sovereignty while securing peace.
This strategy was neither surrender nor reckless militarization. Its core principles were:
1. Never surrender national sovereignty
2. Never lead the country into destruction
3. Use time, law, and diplomacy as strategic weapons
These principles explain why Cambodia must stand firmly and exclusively on Paths One and Two.
Conclusion: When Will This War End?
The Cambodia–Thailand war will not end through promises or declarations alone.
It will end on the day the aggressor begins to pay a real price—politically, diplomatically, and economically—for its actions.
It will end when the world stops remaining silent and begins fulfilling its responsibilities, particularly the United States and ASEAN, which cannot allow the credibility of the Kuala Lumpur Peace Agreement to be trampled.
It will end when effective third-party mechanisms are deployed to monitor and enforce a genuine ceasefire—not one that exists only on paper.
And it will end when attacks on civilians and the destruction of national and world cultural heritage are clearly defined as acts that are absolutely non-negotiable and intolerable—both in principle and in practice.
Therefore, the question “When will the war end?” is not one Cambodia must answer alone.
It is a question the entire world must answer—through action, not words.
If the world continues to delay, that delay will be paid for with innocent lives and irreplaceable heritage. History will judge the international community not by what it said, but by what it did—or failed to do—when justice was urgently demanded.
