Fighting along disputed Thai-Cambodian border enters second day
Clashes broke out at 4:30 a.m. local time on Friday after Cambodia initiated firing, using small arms and heavy weapons, Col. Richa Sooksuwanon, the deputy spokesperson for the Thai army, told CNN. The Thai army responded with artillery fire, he said.
The Thai army in the region also posted on Facebook in the following hours into Friday morning, warning that its forces were conducting bomb disposal operations and recovering bodies from the Kantharalak district that had been hit by Cambodian rockets on Thursday.
It warned that clashes were taking place in two locations in Ubon Ratchathani province and one in Surin province, and urged the public to avoid the area. Heavy weapon and rocket fire had been reported coming from Cambodia, it said.
The fighting broke out on Thursday following months of tensions along the two countries' 500-mile (800-kilometer) land border,
Thursday's clashes saw exchanges of small arms and rocket fire, with Thailand later scrambling F-16 jets and bombing what it said were military targets inside Cambodia.
At least 14 people have been killed so far in Thailand, mostly civilians, according to Thailand's Ministry of Public Health.
Meanwhile in Cambodia, at least one person has been killed and five wounded, according to Met Measpheakdey, a spokesperson from Oddar Meanchey province. He added that as of Friday morning, tensions were 'still heated.'
'The exchange of fighting… is still happening,' he said.
More than 4,000 people in Cambodia have been displaced from their homes near the border, the Associated Press reported on Friday, citing another official from Oddar Meanchey.
The recent flare-up came after five Thai soldiers were injured in a landmine explosion on Wednesday.
But tensions had been building since May, when a Cambodian soldier was killed during a clash between Thai and Cambodian troops in which both sides opened fire in another contested border area of the Emerald Triangle, where Cambodia, Thailand and Laos meet.
Thailand and Cambodia have a relationship of both cooperation and rivalry. They share a 500-mile (800-kilometer) land border — largely mapped by France when it ruled Cambodia — that has periodically seen military clashes and been the source of political tensions.
But it's not an evenly matched fight. Thailand's military dwarfs Cambodia's in both personnel and weaponry; its 361,000 active-duty personnel is three times Cambodia's manpower.
And the United States classes Thailand as a major non-NATO ally, enabling Bangkok to enjoy decades of US support for its weapons programs.
Thailand's military has long been a major player within the kingdom's politics and has seized power in multiple coups, often toppling democratic governments. It portrays itself as the ultimate defender of the monarchy.
After the fighting began Thursday, several nations urged the neighbors to de-escalate and avoid further conflict, including Japan and the US.
CNN's Patrick Sarnsamak and Len Leng contributed reporting.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
5 minutes ago
- Newsweek
GOP Senator: Congress Must Hold NATO to Its 5 Percent Defense Spending Commitment
The main benefit of alliances, such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), is deterrence. Our enemies are less likely to harm one of us if they know they'll have to face all of us. At the end of the day, though, an alliance is just a promise—built on mutual trust—stating that we won't leave each other to fight threats alone. An alliance will only deter threats if our adversaries sincerely believe that we will all stick together no matter what. If an alliance has loopholes, it's not really an alliance at all. That's why some of the fine print in NATO's latest defense spending commitment is so concerning. On the surface, it appeared as though every member of NATO agreed to increase its defense spending to 5 percent of its GDP by 2035—and I'm confident that many of our allies intend to do just that. A NATO flag is pictured. A NATO flag is pictured. MATEUSZ SLODKOWSKI/AFP via Getty Images But some of our friends in NATO have already begun to weasel their way out of this commitment. Spain, for example, has flat-out refused to spend 5 percent on defense. Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez told NATO officials that Spain would only spend 2.1 percent on defense, adding, "It is the legitimate right of every government to decide whether or not they are willing to make those sacrifices." To clarify: Sánchez expects the American people to make sacrifices to contribute to our shared defense, but he doesn't want anyone in Spain to miss a single siesta for the cause. Does that sound like someone who would ride with you into battle? Still, NATO exempted Spain and made the 5 percent defense spending requirement optional for each country, turning its commitment into a wish list. The Spanish carveout isn't the only crack in NATO's commitment. Under the new agreement, only 3.5 percent of each country's spending needs to contribute to core defense needs, such as military, ammunition, and other standard warfighting needs. The remaining 1.5 percent of spending can be applied to almost anything the country can claim is beneficial to its defense. Italy, for example, is already planning to include a €13.5 billion bridge to Sicily as part of its 1.5 percent defense spending. The Italian government has long viewed the bridge, which would be the world's largest suspension bridge, as a possible economic driver. Under NATO's flimsy language, though, the bridge may count as defense infrastructure. This wouldn't be the first time our NATO friends skirted their defense responsibilities. In 2006, NATO agreed to have each member spend 2 percent of its GDP on defense. Only three members of the alliance had hit the spending goal by 2014, the same year that Russian President Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula. Putin's aggression prompted NATO to reaffirm its 2 percent defense spending goal in 2014. By 2022, only seven members of NATO had reached 2 percent, and, once again, Putin invaded Ukraine in a war that continues today. That should have been the final wake-up call our NATO friends needed to meet their 2 percent spending pledge. Still, NATO's latest numbers show that eight members, including Canada, Italy, and Spain, have not met the 2 percent spending goal. Yet we are supposed to believe they'll hit 5 percent defense spending by 2035. Friends tell friends the truth. When they don't, friendships fall apart—and our adversaries take note. Today, I am introducing a resolution to commend our NATO allies who agreed to increase their defense spending to 5 percent and to strongly urge every member of NATO to follow through with this commitment sincerely. If we want to deter our adversaries, we need real investments in our defense, not bridges that have little, if anything, to do with national security. NATO is one of the greatest defensive alliances in all of human history, but these loopholes make us weaker. The world needs to know we have each other's backs, and that starts by putting your money where your mouth is. Senator John Kennedy is a Republican senator from Louisiana. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
San Francisco Chronicle
37 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Thailand and Cambodia reaffirm ceasefire after China-brokered meeting in Shanghai
BANGKOK, Thailand (AP) — Thailand and Cambodia reaffirmed their shaky ceasefire violation after days of fighting along their border, as China stepped in to negotiate with the two countries. The ceasefire reached in Malaysia was supposed to take effect at midnight on Monday, but was quickly tested. Thailand's army accused Cambodia of launching attacks in multiple areas early Tuesday, but Cambodia said there was no firing in any location. The Thai army then reported exchanges of gunfire into Wednesday morning but said there was no use of heavy artillery. 'Such act of aggression constitutes once again a clear violation of the ceasefire agreement by Cambodian forces and their apparent lack of good faith,' said Thailand's Foreign Ministry in a statement Wednesday morning. By Wednesday afternoon, however, both sides appeared to have reaffirmed their commitment to a ceasefire, with representatives appearing smiling in a photo with a Chinese vice minister Sun Weidong at a meeting in Shanghai. In attendance from Cambodia was Kung Phaok, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs Ministry and in attendance from Thailand was Jullapong Nonsrichai, executive advisor to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Thailand. 'Cambodia and Thailand reiterated to China their commitment to the ceasefire consensus and expressed appreciation for China's positive role in de-escalating the situation,' a statement from China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs said. China said the informal meeting was its 'latest diplomatic effort' and it was playing a 'constructive role in resolving their border dispute," according to the same statement. Violating the ceasefire The fighting Tuesday night occurred in Phu Makhuea, a mountain in a disputed area next to Thaikand's Sisaket province. Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Manet and Thailand's acting prime minister, Phumtham Wechayachai, agreed on Monday to an 'unconditional' halt in fighting, which has killed at least 41 people. The meeting was hosted by Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim as annual chair of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. He called the ceasefire a 'vital first step towards de-escalation and the restoration of peace and security.' The ceasefire was brokered with U.S. pressure and U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Washington applauded the ceasefire declaration. 'President (Donald) Trump and I are committed to an immediate cessation of violence and expect the governments of Cambodia and Thailand to fully honor their commitments to end this conflict,' Rubio said in a statement. Hun Manet said Tuesday that Trump had called to offer congratulations for the peace move. He posted on social media that Trump pledged the U.S. would join the monitoring process along with Malaysia to ensure the ceasefire is implemented. The Thai government separately said it has complained to Malaysia, the U.S. and China about Cambodia's alleged breach of the ceasefire agreement previously. By Wednesday, there were signs of calm along the border, with some of the more than 260,000 people displaced by the fighting returning to their homes. Cambodia and Thailand have clashed in the past over their 800-kilometer (500-mile) border. The fighting began Thursday after a land mine explosion along the border wounded five Thai soldiers. Tensions had been growing since May when a Cambodian soldier was killed in a confrontation that created a diplomatic rift and roiled Thailand's domestic politics. While some residents near the border have started returning home, many remain behind in evacuation shelters, uncertain of their fate. Vendor Kanchana Sukjit, 33, said she fled home near the Ta Muen Thom temple with a few belongings and her small white-colored dog Nam Khaeng, which means ice in Thai. The temple had been one of the main flashpoints in the conflict over the past week. It was the first time she had to flee home like this and she was worried as she waited for clearer instructions about what happens next. 'I'm stressed when I read the news, like when reports said they were going to fire (a long-range rocket), because my home is right next to a military camp. I was quite stressed that day because I was afraid that my home would get caught in a crossfire,' she said.
NBC News
38 minutes ago
- NBC News
How Trump's poll numbers on immigration have shifted as he has enacted his agenda
President Donald Trump started his second term with one huge difference compared with his first term: Polls regularly showed majorities of Americans approving of his handling of immigration. In fact, it was his best issue, whereas it had been one of his least popular before. Six months into his second term, it's still among his best issues, but it's no longer as popular. There has been a clear decline in support for Trump's handling of immigration, with his approval rating dropping across a handful of prominent polls. The trend mirrors the downtick in his overall approval rating as the administration has pursued an aggressive set of policies resulting in many arrests but slow progress on deportations of known undocumented immigrants convicted of major crimes, as well as controversial clashes over deportations. While Trump still gets good marks on some specifics, including border security, many of his more aggressive specific immigration policies don't poll well, even as he continues to press on with immigration as a signature issue. Polls do continue to show immigration remaining among Trump's most popular issues. But the trend is clear. While most Trump voters remain satisfied with his handling of immigration and other issues, some have told NBC News that they take issue with his approach. "For one, I think it's immoral," Jorge, 21, an independent from Florida who voted for Trump last year, said in an interview following up on his responses in a previous poll. He criticized the Trump administration for not "taking the time to separate the people who do not need to be here, which are the criminals, illegal criminals and migrants, and separating from the working people that benefit our society," said Jorge, who declined to share his last name while discussing national politics. "It's disappointing. ... He thinks he can just take everyone." Inside the data In poll after poll in his first few weeks in office, Trump's approval rating on immigration regularly eclipsed 50%. Fifty-six percent of registered voters approved of his handling of immigration in a late January survey as part of Morning Consult's "Trump Tracker," which includes his approval rating on a slew of issues. Other polls found similar results: 51% of U.S. citizen adults approved in a mid-February Economist/YouGov poll, 54% of adults approved in a late February CBS/YouGov poll, and 51% of adults approved in an early March CNN poll. But across each of those polls, there has been a clear downward trend as more Americans are souring on Trump's handling of that major issue. Some of the movement is within polls' margins of error, but overall, they consistently show a measure of decline. In CNN's mid-July poll, just 42% of adults approved of Trump's handling of immigration, while 45% of adults said the same in an early July Economist/YouGov poll, as did 41% in a late June Quinnipiac University poll. While narrowly half or more still approved of Trump's handling of the issue in the most recent Morning Consult (51%) and CBS/YouGov (50%) polls from mid-July and late June, respectively, months of surveys by both found the same trend of slightly decreased ratings on immigration. Fox News' poll, however, hasn't changed much. Fox News tested Trump's approval rating on immigration three times, finding it at 47% in April, 46% in June and 48% in July. That having been said, the landscape remains complicated, especially from a partisan political perspective. When Fox News asked this month which party does a better job on immigration, Republicans had a 6-point lead (52%-46%). While that's down from the double-digit Republican advantage the poll found in 2022 and 2023, Democrats had the edge when Fox tested the question during the first three years of Trump's first term. What has sparked the public reaction A possible reason Trump's broader numbers on immigration have fallen could lie in the administration's policies itself. Even when Trump's numbers on the issue were higher, the harder-edged parts of his immigration policy — the ones the administration has trumpeted in recent months — have always polled worse than his overall numbers on the issue. Then, once Trump started acting on those policies, they drove news coverage and perceptions of the administration. The Wall Street Journal poll conducted in mid-January, before Trump returned to office, provides a clear example of the pre-inauguration warning signs on an issue that was once a strength. Almost three-quarters of registered voters (74%) said they supported detaining and deporting only undocumented immigrants who had been convicted of crimes. It was the second-most-popular immigration proposal tested, behind creating a pathway to citizenship for "undocumented immigrants who have been in the U.S. for many years and pass a background check," which 79% supported. A majority of registered voters also favored increasing the level of legal immigration and the number of H1-B visas available for high-skilled workers. The public was narrowly in favor of a plan to "detain and deport millions of undocumented immigrants" (52% in favor); noting that businesses could face worker shortages because of the plan made it slightly less popular. A majority (53%) also backed building a wall along the Mexican border. By contrast, only 38% favored a plan to detain and deport undocumented immigrants with American citizen children, 31% favored a call to end birthright citizenship, and 26% favored deporting "undocumented immigrants even if they have lived in the U.S. for 10 or more years, pay taxes on earnings, and have no criminal record." Fox News found a similar thing when it polled voters' views on illegal immigration shortly before Trump returned to office and in late July. Both times, 59% said their views hewed closest to "deport only those illegal immigrants who have been charged with crimes but allow others to remain in the U.S. and eventually qualify for citizenship." Twenty-nine percent said they backed deporting all illegal immigrants, and 11% backed allowing all to remain in the country. In other words, there's broader support for general promises of deportations or plans focused on removing criminals than there is support for specifically deporting people who haven't committed crimes outside of coming to the United States illegally or people who have American citizen children. Other, more recent polls have mirrored those findings. A May NPR/Ipsos poll on immigration found near-majority support (48%) for "quickly deporting alleged gang members under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798," and pluralities also supported a border wall and allowing local law enforcement to detain immigrants without legal status. But a near-majority, 46%, backed giving "legal status to immigrants without legal status brought to the U.S. as children," and a majority (53%) opposed ending birthright citizenship, which Trump has tried to do by an executive order that has been challenged in court. And the public was almost evenly divided on support for the "mass deportation of everyone who is in the country without legal status." This week, the Wall Street Journal poll found registered voters close to evenly split on their approval of Trump's handling of immigration — 48% approved, 51% disapproved — and with similar marks for his handling of illegal immigration specifically — 51% approved, 49% approved. But as in many other recent polls, some specific pieces of the administration's policy poll better than others. Sixty-two percent approve of "deporting undocumented immigrants," while 36% oppose. But 58% oppose deporting people "believed to be here illegally without them ever seeing a judge or getting a hearing." And 53% say the "Trump administration is crossing the line" with its deportation efforts, while 45% say it is "doing what is necessary." Most of the swing-state voters who participated still supported Trump and his broad actions on deportations, but a handful of participants criticized the administration's widespread deportations. They said Trump and the government should be prioritizing undocumented immigrants who committed additional crimes over those who have followed the rules since they came to the country illegally. 'He was going to deport people that were criminals and have backgrounds,' Ruby L., a focus group participant who was born in Colombia and lives in Georgia, said last month. 'But I see that he's deporting people that work hard and have been in this country. I think he should find a way to help them stay and get a citizenship or something.'
