Thailand-Cambodia border: Clashes continue as death toll rises and thousands displaced
"I welcome the positive signals and willingness shown by both Bangkok and Phnom Penh to consider this path forward," Anwar, who chairs the Association of South East Asian Nations or Asean, wrote on Facebook.Thailand says 14 civilians and one soldier have been killed so far while Cambodia has not released a casualty figure.The US has also called for an "immediate cessation of hostilities, protection of civilians and a peaceful resolution of the conflict". "We are ... gravely concerned by the escalating violence along the Thailand Cambodia border, and deeply saddened by reports of harm to civilians," State Department spokesman Tommy Pigott said at a regular media briefing.China, which has political and strategic ties with Cambodia and Thailand, said it is "deeply concerned" over the conflict and hope both sides can resolve issues through dialogue and consultation.Australia, the European Union and France have also called for peace. The United Nations Security Council is expected to meet on Friday over the conflict.In a letter to the council on Thursday, Cambodia's Prime Minister Hun Manet had urged it to intervene to "stop Thailand's aggression".Thailand and Cambodia have accused the other of firing the first shots on Thursday. Thailand claims the clash began with Cambodia's military deploying drones to conduct surveillance of Thai troops near the border.Cambodia says Thai soldiers initiated the conflict when they violated a prior agreement by advancing on a Khmer-Hindu temple near the border.The dispute between the two countries dates back to more than a hundred years ago, when the borders of the two nations were drawn after the French occupation of Cambodia.There were sporadic clashes over the years which saw soldiers and civilians killed on both sides.The latest tensions ramped up in May after a Cambodian soldier was killed in a clash. This plunged bilateral ties to their lowest point in more than a decade.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Statesman
4 hours ago
- New Statesman
How Britain lost the status game
Photo by Stefan Rousseau/AFP I've always been a bit puzzled by the 1956 Suez Crisis. The idea of Britain, France and Israel plotting together but being defeated by the honest, righteous Americans does feel, nearly a lifetime later, a little strange. But the most baffling thing about the Suez Crisis is the idea that it was a crisis. It's always described as this a great national humiliation which ruined a prime minister, the sort of watershed to inspire national soul-searching, state-of-the-nation plays and a whole library of books. And yet, compared to the sort of thing which literally every other European country had to deal with at some point in the 20th century, it's nothing. Britain was not invaded or occupied; Britain did not see its population starve. Britain simply learned that it was no longer top dog. That's all. The event and the reaction don't seem to go together. But this, of course, is to see the world from the perspective of today. Now, we all know that Britain cannot just do what it wants – that the US is the far more powerful player. At the start of 1956, though, large chunks of the map were still coloured British pink (or, come to that, French bleu), and the median opinion at home was that this was broadly a good thing. Suez was the moment when the loss of status we now date to 1945 came home. I wonder, in my darker moments, if we're going through something similar now – a less dramatic decline, perhaps, but a potentially more ruinous one. The loss of empire, after all, was mainly an issue for the pride of the political classes. Today's decline in status affects everyone. Consider the number of areas in which the current British government seems utterly helpless before the might of much bigger forces. It's not quite true to say that Rachel Reeves has no room for manoeuvre – breaking a manifesto pledge and raising one of the core taxes remains an option, albeit one that would be painful for government and taxpayer alike. But her borrowing and spending options are constrained by the sense of a bond market both far flightier than it once was, thanks to an increase in short term investors, and less willing, post-Truss, to give Britain the benefit of the doubt. The thing that much of the public would like Reeves to do – spend more, without raising taxes – is a thing it is by no means clear she has the power to do. Over in foreign policy, Keir Starmer has offended sensibilities by making nice with someone entirely unfit to be president of the United States, and whose actions place him a lot closer to the dictators of the 20th century than to Eisenhower or JFK. The problem for Starmer is that saying this out loud would likely result in ruinous tariffs, or the collapse of NATO before an alternative system for the defence of Europe can be prepared, or both. Again, he has no space to do what his voters want him to do. In the same vein, consider the anger about Britain's failure to act to prevent the horrors still unfolding in Gaza. It is not to imply the government has handled things well to suggest that at least part of the problem is that – 69 years on from Suez – the government of Israel doesn't give a fig about what the government of Britain thinks. The things the public wants may be outside the realm of things the government can actually deliver. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Even in less overtly political realms, the British state feels helplessly at the mercy of global forces beyond its control. The domestic TV industry, a huge British export, is in crisis thanks to the streamers. AI will change the world, we're told, and it's very possible that isn't a good thing: and what is Westminster supposed to do about that? And with which faculties? In all these areas and a thousand more, people want their government to do something to change the direction of events, and it is not at all obvious it can. Ever since 2016, British politics has been plagued by a faintly Australian assumption that, if a prime minister is not delivering, you should kick them out and bring in the next one. That is not the worst impulse in a democracy. But what if Britain is so changed that delivery is not possible? Researchers have found that social status affects the immune system of certain types of monkey – that the stress of lower status can, quite literally, kill. It already looks plausible the electorate might roll the dice on Nigel Farage. This is terrifying enough. But when it turns out he can't take back control either, but only trash what's there – what then? [See more: Trump in the wilderness] Related
Spectator
16 hours ago
- Spectator
Why can't we agree on data?
John O'Neill and Sam McPhail, the Spectator's research and data team, join economics editor Michael Simmons to re-introduce listeners to the Spectator's data hub. They take us through the process between the data hub and how their work feeds into the weekly magazine. From crime to migration, which statistics are the most controversial? Why can't we agree on data? Plus – whose data is presented better, the Americans or the French? For more from the Spectator's data hub – which may, or may not look like the thumbnail photo – go to: Produced by Patrick Gibbons and Megan McElroy.
Daily Record
18 hours ago
- Daily Record
Hackers threaten to leak 'top-secret' data after major cyberattack on French military
Hackers have released 30 gigabytes of data and threatened to leak more sensitive military information Cyber criminals claiming to have launched a devastating attack against French naval powerhouse Naval Group have released 30 gigabytes of classified material, whilst threatening to expose further critical military secrets. The French military shipbuilder Naval Group, renowned for crafting submarines and frigates, has dismissed the hacking allegations, confirming it had "immediately launched technical investigations" after sensitive material appeared online. The purported data breach allegedly contains classified intelligence regarding the NATO ally's nuclear submarine fleet. State-owned Naval Group manufactures France's Suffren-class submarines - nuclear-powered and nuclear-armed attack vessels designed for anti-surface and anti-submarine operations, ground strikes, and specialist missions. Boasting a heritage spanning 400 years back to Louis XIII's reign, Naval Group also constructed the French Navy's flagship and only operational aircraft carrier, the Charles de Gaulle, reports the Express. Writing on a dark web platform, the hackers claimed possession of "top-secret classified" intelligence on "submarines and frigates", issuing the firm a 72-hour ultimatum to acknowledge the breach, whilst alleging their cache includes source code for submarine weapons systems. Around 30GB of material was published by the digital criminals, though they insist they possess far more intelligence at their disposal - potentially one terabyte of documents. Naval Group maintained there had been "no intrusion into our IT environments", stating it was the victim of a "reputational attack". As the largest shipbuilder in France, the company, which is nearly two-thirds owned by the French government, boasts a workforce of over 15,000 and generates revenues exceeding €4.4bn. "Naval Group has noticed being the target of a reputational attack with the claim of a cyber-malice act. We immediately launched technical investigations," a spokesperson commented. "All teams and resources are currently mobilised to analyse and verify the authenticity, origin and ownership of the data as quickly as possible. "At this stage, no intrusion into our IT environments has been detected and there has been no impact on our activities." Data breaches have become a global issue, with both commercial entities and governmental bodies succumbing to cyber attacks. Just last week, Microsoft acknowledged that a July software update failed to completely rectify a couple of vulnerabilities, leaving SharePoint servers susceptible to hackers who could remotely execute code, an issue attributed to Chinese "threat actors". In another incident, the US National Nuclear Security Administration, which oversees America's nuclear weapons, was recently compromised but maintains that no sensitive information was accessed.
