Thailand and Cambodia agree to hold immediate ceasefire talks
Shoon Naing
,
Artorn Pookasook
and
Susan Heavey
, Reuters
Cambodian soldiers stand on a military truck with an anti-aircraft gun in Oddar Meanchey province on 26 July, 2025.
Photo:
TANG CHHIN SOTHY / AFP
US President Donald Trump said on Saturday that the leaders of Cambodia and Thailand had agreed to meet immediately to quickly work out a ceasefire, as he sought to broker peace after three days of fighting along their border.
Thailand's acting prime minister, Phumtham Wechayachai, thanked Trump and said Thailand "agrees in principle to have a ceasefire in place" but "would like to see sincere intention from the Cambodian side." Phumtham was responding in a Facebook post to a series of social media posts by Trump during a visit to Scotland. Trump said he had spoken to Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Manet and Phumtham and warned them that he would not make trade deals with either if the border conflict continued.
"Both Parties are looking for an immediate Ceasefire and Peace," Trump wrote as he gave a blow-by-blow account of his diplomatic efforts.
Phumtham also said he had asked Trump "to convey to the Cambodian side that Thailand wants to convene a bilateral dialogue as soon as possible to bring forth measures and procedures for the ceasefire and the eventual peaceful resolution of the conflict." More than 30 people have been killed and more than 130,000 people displaced in the worst fighting between the Southeast Asian neighbours in 13 years.
Before Trump spoke to the two leaders, clashes on the Thai-Cambodian border persisted into a third day and new flashpoints emerged as both sides said they had acted in self-defense in the border dispute and called on the other to cease fighting and start negotiations.
There were clashes early on Saturday, both sides said, in the neighbouring Thai coastal province of Trat and Cambodia's Pursat Province, a new front more than 100km (60 miles) from other conflict points along the long-contested border.
The countries have faced off since the killing of a Cambodian soldier late in May during a brief skirmish. Troops on both sides of the border were reinforced amid a full-blown diplomatic crisis that brought Thailand's fragile coalition government to the brink of collapse.
As of Saturday, Thailand said seven soldiers and 13 civilians had been killed, while Cambodia said five soldiers and eight civilians had been killed.
Trump's direct involvement on Saturday followed US calls for restraint on both sides. He said he spoke to each leader and relayed messages back and forth. "They have agreed to immediately meet and quickly work out a Ceasefire and, ultimately, PEACE!," Trump wrote, saying both countries wanted to get back to the "Trading Table." He has sought to reach separate deals with dozens of countries in response to his announcement of wide-ranging tariffs on imports to the US
"When all is done, and Peace is at hand, I look forward to concluding our Trading Agreements with both!" Trump said.
He offered no details on the ceasefire negotiations he said Thailand and Cambodia had agreed to hold.
The White House did not immediately respond to questions on the timing and venue for talks and the Thai and Cambodian embassies in Washington also did not immediately respond. In Kuala Lumpur, Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, the chair of the ASEAN regional bloc, said he would continue to push a ceasefire proposal. Cambodia has backed Anwar's plan, while Thailand has said it agreed with it in principle.
"There is still some exchange of fire," Anwar said, according to state news agency Bernama. He said he had asked his foreign minister "to liaise with the respective foreign ministries and, if possible, I will continue engaging with them myself - at least to halt the fighting".
Thailand's ambassador to the United Nations told a Security Council meeting on Friday that soldiers had been injured by newly planted land mines in Thai territory on two occasions since mid-July - claims Cambodia has strongly denied - and said Cambodia had then launched attacks on Thursday morning.
"Thailand urges Cambodia to immediately cease all hostilities and acts of aggression, and resume dialogue in good faith," Cherdchai Chaivaivid told the council in remarks released to media.
In a statement on Saturday, Cambodia's defense ministry said Thailand had launched "a deliberate, unprovoked, and unlawful military attack" and was mobilising troops and military equipment on the border.
"These deliberate military preparations reveal Thailand's intent to expand its aggression and further violate Cambodia's sovereignty," it said.
Cambodia called for the international community to "condemn Thailand's aggression in the strongest terms" and to prevent an expansion of its military activities, while Bangkok reiterated it wanted to resolve the dispute bilaterally.
Thailand and Cambodia have bickered for decades over jurisdiction of various undemarcated points along their 817km land border, with ownership of the ancient Hindu temples Ta Moan Thom and the 11th century Preah Vihear central to the disputes.
Preah Vihear was awarded to Cambodia by the International Court of Justice in 1962, but tension escalated in 2008 after Cambodia attempted to list it as a UNESCO World Heritage site.
That led to skirmishes over several years and at least a dozen deaths.
Cambodia in June said it had asked the court to resolve its disputes with Thailand, which says it has never recognised the court's jurisdiction and prefers a bilateral approach.
- Reuters
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
2 hours ago
- RNZ News
The Trump administration takes a very Orwellian turn
By Aaron Blake , CNN US President Donald Trump. Photo: AFP Analysis - Back in March, US President Donald Trump signed an executive order targeted at the Smithsonian Institution that began as follows: "Over the past decade, Americans have witnessed a concerted and widespread effort to rewrite our Nation's history, replacing objective facts with a distorted narrative driven by ideology rather than truth." Despite the high-minded rhetoric, many worried the order was instead a thinly veiled effort to rewrite history more to Trump's liking. The order, for example, cited a desire to remove "improper ideology" - an ominous phrase, if there ever was one - from properties like the Smithsonian. Those concerns were certainly bolstered this week. We learned that some historical information that recently vanished from the Smithsonian just so happens to have been objective history that Trump really dislikes: a reference to his two impeachments. The Smithsonian said that a board containing the information was removed from the National Museum of American History last month after a review of the museum's "legacy content." The board had been placed in front of an existing impeachment exhibit in September 2021. Just to drive this home: The exhibit itself is about "Limits of Presidential Power." And suddenly examples of the biggest efforts by Congress to limit Trump's were gone. It wasn't immediately clear that the board was removed pursuant to Trump's executive order. The Washington Post, which broke the news, reported that a source said the content review came after pressure from the White House to remove an art museum director. In other words, we don't know all the details of precisely how this went down - including whether the removal was specifically requested, or whether museum officials decided it might be a good way to placate Trump amid pressure. The Smithsonian said in a statement that it was "not asked by any administration" or government official to remove content and that an updated version of the exhibit will ultimately mention all impeachment efforts, including Trump's. But it's all pretty Orwellian. And it's not the only example. Trump has always been rather blatant about his efforts to rewrite history with self-serving falsehoods and rather shameless in applying pressure on the people who would serve as impartial referees of the current narrative. But this week has taken things to another level. Last week, Trump fired the commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics . This came just hours after that agency delivered Trump some very bad news: the worst non-Covid three-month jobs numbers since 2010. Some Trump allies have attempted to put a good face on this, arguing that Dr Erika McEntarfer's removal was warranted because large revisions in the job numbers betrayed shoddy work. But as he did with the firing of then-FBI Director James Comey eight years ago, Trump quickly undermined all that. He told Newsmax that "we fired her because we didn't believe the numbers today." To the extent Trump did lay out an actual evidence-based case for firing McEntarfer, that evidence was conspiratorial and wrong, as CNN's Daniel Dale documented Friday. And even some Republican senators acknowledged this might be precisely as draconian and self-serving as it looked. Senator Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, for one, called it "kind of impetuous" to fire the BLS head before finding out whether the new numbers were actually wrong. "It's not the statistician's fault if the numbers are accurate and that they're not what the president had hoped for," said Lummis, who is not often a Trump critic. Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina added that if Trump "just did it because they didn't like the numbers, they ought to grow up." Senators Rand Paul of Kentucky and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska both worried that Trump's move would make it so people can't trust the data the administration is putting out. And that's the real problem here. It's not so much that Trump appears to be firing someone as retaliation; it's the message it sends to everyone else in a similar position. The message is that you might want that data and those conclusions to be to Trump's liking, or else. It's a recipe for getting plenty of unreliable data and conclusions. And even to the extent that information is solid, it will seed suspicions about the books having been cooked - both among regular Americans and, crucially, among those making key decisions that impact the economy. What happens if the next jobs report is great? Will the markets believe it? We've certainly seen plenty of rather blunt Trump efforts to control such narratives and rewrite history before. A sampling: All of it reinforces the idea that Trump is trying to consolidate power by pursuing rather heavy-handed and blatant tactics. But if there's a week that really drove home how blunt these efforts can be, it might be this one. - CNN
NZ Herald
2 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Fact-checking under fire as tech giants cut support amid misinformation surge
In reviewing many of the some 3000 fact checks I have written or edited, there is a clear dividing line: June 2015, the month Donald Trump rode down the Trump Tower escalator and announced he was running for President. 'Businessman Donald Trump is a fact-checker's dream ... and nightmare,' I wrote in the fact-check of his announcement speech. How little did I realise that would be true. Trump decreed that mainstream news organisations were 'the enemy of the people', undermining faith in traditional reporting, and insisted to his followers that he was the best source of information. In ending its work with fact-checkers, Meta chief executive Mark Zuckerberg falsely claimed that fact-checkers censored free speech by being 'too politically biased', echoing Trump administration arguments. The Washington Post did not participate in the Meta programme, but any Facebook user had the option to opt out of having posts fact-checked. Many fact-checkers would liken their work to nutritional labels on snack foods – providing more information about online content. People are free to ignore the warnings, just as people can ignore nutritional labels. Meanwhile, although the European Union enacted a law, the Digital Services Act, to ensure online platforms combat misinformation (such as by relying on fact-checkers), European fact-checkers are concerned that enforcement of the law could be weakened as part of trade negotiations with the Trump administration – which opposes such regulation. Indeed, the Trump administration has also pressured Brazil to end its regulation of online platforms. The issue is sensitive in Brazil because the January 8, 2023 attack on the Brazilian Congress was inspired by clips spread across social media platforms of the January 6 attack on the US Capitol by Trump supporters one year earlier. Brazilian officials insisted they will not back down in the face of Trump's threats, saying regulating social media platforms is a consumer safety issue, like driving laws. 'Self-regulation has proven a failure,' Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes said. 'Your freedom does not mean to be free to go the wrong way and crash into another car and kill another driver,' Cármen Lúcia, the president of Brazil's Superior Electoral Court, told the fact-checking conference. Before Trump entered politics, I found that many politicians spun or dissembled but most tried to keep their claims tethered to the truth. Our fact checks covered a range of topics, such as the accuracy of government statistics on students dying from alcohol or exaggerated claims about sex trafficking, which led lawmakers to stop using them. President Barack Obama told the occasional whopper – 'If you like your healthcare plan, you'll be able to keep your healthcare plan' – but it was the rare politician, such as Minnesota Republican Representative Michelle Bachmann, who constantly spouted Pinocchio-laden nonsense. Obama's Vice-President, Joe Biden, also had a reputation for mangling the truth: in 2011, Biden touted an Obama-era jobs bill by claiming the number of rapes in Flint, Michigan, had – depending on the hour of the day – doubled, tripled or even quadrupled because the number of police had been reduced. There was no evidence to support any of his statistics. But Bachmann and Biden were outliers. In the 2012 presidential campaign between Obama and Mitt Romney, the former Republican Governor of Massachusetts, the two candidates were neck-and-neck in their average Pinocchio rating. Indeed, they had the lowest average number of Pinocchios of the major 2012 presidential candidates. They also took fact checks seriously. Both candidates dropped talking points after a negative fact-check rating. An Obama administration official explained to me how, when faced with a choice of figures, the administration took the more modest number in hopes of avoiding Pinocchios. I heard from a campaign source that during debate prep, Obama, to his great annoyance, was told he couldn't use a statistic because it had gotten Pinocchios. Obama's campaign manager even sent a lengthy letter to the Post editor complaining that my Pinocchio ratings were undermining his attacks on Romney's business record. The expectation that politicians would stick close to the truth began to erode with Trump's emergence. He claimed that thousands of Muslims in New Jersey had celebrated the 9/11 attacks – and doubled down even after my fact check proved this was a fantasy. He invented statistics – that the unemployment rate, then pegged at 4.9%, was really 42% – and kept repeating them, no matter how many times he was fact-checked. In 2016, Trump's opponents still cared about the facts. Florida Governor Jeb Bush's campaign had a wall where they posted positive fact checks. Ohio Governor John Kasich dropped a talking point simply in response to my question for a possible fact check. Hillary Clinton's staff worked hard to find policy experts to vouch for her statistics. (Her comments on her private email server were less defensible.) But Trump didn't care. He kept rising in the polls and eventually won the presidency. Other politicians took notice and followed his lead. Besides Trump, something else changed the nature of truth in the mid-2010s: the rise of social media. The Fact Checker was launched in 2007, one year after the creation of Twitter and when Facebook had only 50 million users. By 2012, Facebook had 1 billion followers; it reached nearly 1.6 billion in 2015. Trump adroitly used Twitter – where he had 2.76 million followers at the start of 2015 – and other social media to spread his message. Trump's call to ban Muslims from entering the United States was the most-talked-about moment on Facebook among the 2016 candidates in all of 2015, according to Facebook data. Social media helped fuel the rise of Trump – and made it easier for false claims to circulate. Russian operatives in 2016 used fake accounts on social media to spread disinformation and create divisive content – tactics that led companies such as Meta to begin to use fact-checkers to identify misleading content. But the political forces that benefited from false information – such as Trump and his allies – led a backlash against such efforts, saying it was a form of censorship. Now tech companies are scaling back their efforts to combat misinformation. In Trump's second term, even venerable institutions such as the State Department – which I covered for nine years – spout falsehoods to attack efforts to combat disinformation. 'In Europe, thousands are being convicted for the crime of criticising their own governments,' the department said in an X, formerly Twitter post on July 22. 'This Orwellian message won't fool the United States. Censorship is not freedom.' (The post was in response to a French Government post promoting the Digital Services Act.) When I asked the State Department for evidence of the claim that 'thousands' had been convicted, the department twice asked for more time to respond – and then declined to comment. Many on the left and right argue that fact-checking is merely another form of opinion journalism, disguised behind a veneer of objectivity. But research found that the three main American fact-checkers – The Fact Checker, PolitiFact and – reached the same conclusion on similar statements at least 95% of the time. Of course, some might say this only shows we are all biased in the same way. During Trump's first term, The Fact Checker team documented that he made more than 30,000 false or misleading claims. Week after week, I would write fact checks unpacking his latest misstatements, and Trump generally earned Four Pinocchios – the rating for a whopper. But I sense that the country has gotten so used to Trump exaggerating the truth that it no longer seems surprising. I chose not to repeat the exercise in his second term. Even as he racked up Pinocchios, Trump mentioned them almost 20 times during his first administration. He either complained about receiving Pinocchios or cited them when I awarded Pinocchios to one of his political foes, such as then California Representative Adam Schiff. During the 2024 campaign, Trump sometimes mentioned Pinocchios, such as in a campaign stop in Waunakee, Wisconsin, in October. 'I have to be very careful when I talk because the fake news, if I say something wrong, a little wrong, if I'm 3% off ... they'll give me Pinocchios,' he told a rally. 'You know the Pinocchio? The Washington Post, they give you Pinocchios. If you say something perfectly, they give you a Pinocchio.' But since Trump took office for a second time in January, he hasn't mentioned Pinocchios again. In an era where false claims are the norm, it's much easier to ignore the fact-checkers.
NZ Herald
3 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Letters: Despite Donald Trump's tariffs, we continue to produce world-class meat, dairy and wine
So, in summary and even factoring in US state sales taxes, in totality, New Zealand is only marginally disadvantaged. Further mitigating factors both in favour of the American consumer and the New Zealand exporter is the ongoing strength of the US dollar and Donald Trump's recent big, beautiful tax bill, which will pass significant tax relief and buying power into the hands of millions of American consumers. Also front of mind should be that other countries and direct New Zealand competitors are facing similar, if not greater, tariff increases than New Zealand. Given we continue to produce world-class meat, dairy and wine products, it's unlikely, after a period of adjustment, that price increases at the retail level will have any meaningful impact on American consumers. Bruce Eliott, St Heliers. Voting changes People are criticising the Government for closing voting enrolments two weeks before the election. If you don't want to vote, that is fine. However, if you do, but can't be bothered to put in a small amount of effort to enrol over two weeks before an election, the problem isn't the system, it's you. If you want to vote, make an effort. Mark Young, Ōrewa. Electoral requirements If it is a legal requirement to be enrolled on the electoral roll, as stated by the Government on national television Q&A programme yesterday, why are all those on a benefit or Superannuation or in public services jobs not being checked by either employers or Winz? Who is responsible for checking that all New Zealanders are enrolled and are therefore not in breach of the law? Or does this Government not care about the 'dropkicks' or those who have been removed from the Māori roll? What happens to those who turn 18 on or near polling day? If the enrolment time is shortened, how will NZ Post guarantee that all New Zealanders are enrolled in time, and also the many thousands of Kiwi who have moved to Australia this past year who are still New Zealand citizens? Where is the democratic right for all New Zealanders? It behoves every Kiwi eligible to vote and all parliamentary parties to check the electoral roll in 2026 to make a concerted effort to gather those who are in breach of the law. Marie Kaire, Whangārei. Credit card fees So, the Government is banning credit card fees, whoop de do. Not all retailers charged extra anyway and the ones that did will recover them in some other covert way instead. A waste of Government time and energy all round. A.J. Petersen, Kawerau. Lions v Australia In a dead rubber, Australia won one test against the British and Irish Lions which, in spite of rugby's prevailing conflicting laws, held a passing interest. The game again was an eight-man-a-side wrestling contest with hardly any flowing seven-man backline plays. The tries scored were due only to individual opportunism, rather than teamwork. Once again, rugby was ... the loser. Larry Mitchell, Rothesay Bay. Jami-Lee Ross' political return Former National MP Jami-Lee Ross has said he is aiming for a political comeback, and will run for a seat on the Howick local board in the Flat Bush subdivision. No doubt he has weighed up the pros and cons of this move, but given the way the final chapters of his previous time in politics played out in the media, I'd suggest it would probably be best to give it a miss. He would open himself up for scrutiny, old controversies will be brought up, and his new venture, running an escort agency, will no doubt be 'grist for the mill' for his opponents. The message in Kenny Rogers' song The Gambler says it best: 'You got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em, know when to walk away and know when to run...' Lorraine Kidd, Warkworth.
