Thai and Cambodian PMs to meet today after Trump steps in to broker peace deal
Thailand's Acting Prime Minister Phumtham Wechayachai and Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Manet will hold the meeting in Kuala Lumpur at 3 p.m. local time, Thai government spokesperson Jirayu Houngsub said. The discussions will take place at the office of Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, who is hosting the talks in his role as chair of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).
The first talks since clashes began on July 24 come within 48 hours of Trump saying Thai and Cambodian leaders had agreed to 'quickly work out a ceasefire.' After separate calls with Phumtham and Hun Manet on Saturday, Trump had threatened that Washington will not do a trade deal with either country as long as the fighting continued.
The threat set off a flurry of diplomatic activities on Sunday with Anwar eventually getting the two sides to agree to meet. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio also spoke to the foreign ministers of Thailand and Cambodia and urged them to immediately de-escalate tensions while offering US help in future talks.
Speaking to reporters just before meeting with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen on Sunday, Trump acknowledged the phone calls with the two leaders.
'I called the prime ministers of each and I said, 'We're not going to make a trade deal unless you settle the war.' A lot of people killed,' Trump said. 'And I think by the time I got off, I think they want to settle now.'
With Trump's Aug. 1 tariff deadline looming, trade-reliant Thailand wants to avoid antagonizing the US president, especially as its officials have been holding talks to lower the steep 36% planned levy on its exports. Trump has claimed credit for helping halt border clashes earlier this year between India and Pakistan by leveraging trade measures, and is now applying similar pressure in Southeast Asia.
'When all is done, and Peace is at hand, I look forward to concluding our Trading Agreements with both!,' Trump said on Truth Social after speaking to Thai and Cambodian leaders Saturday.
Thailand's trade talks with the US have included offering expanded access for American goods in an effort to narrow a $46 billion trade surplus with Washington. Neighboring Indonesia, the Philippines, and Vietnam have already secured trade deals with the US in recent weeks.
Thailand and Cambodia shouldn't have needed the pressure from Trump, and should have turned to Asean as a natural middle ground to mediate the conflict well before US intervention, said Fuadi Pitsuwan, a lecturer in international relations at Thammasat University in Bangkok.
'In the end, Trump will likely frame the situation as a win: he enforced a ceasefire while securing leverage' to impose punitive tariff rates, he said.
Despite the economic stakes, Thailand has taken a firm stance ahead of Monday's talks. Officials say any ceasefire must be tied to bilateral resolution of the dispute, the withdrawal of troops, and a halt to the use of lethal weapons. Cambodia, by contrast, has said it is open to an unconditional cessation of hostilities.
The talks are 'intended to listen to all proposals that could contribute to restoring peace,' spokesman Jirayu said. 'The Thai government remains committed to defending the nation's sovereignty and territorial integrity. Every square inch of it.'
The conflict, which escalated from months of simmering border tension, has killed more than 30 people and displaced over 150,000 civilians on both sides. Thailand has reported 22 fatalities, including eight soldiers, while Cambodia has confirmed 13 deaths, including five military personnel.
Heavy artillery fire continued on Sunday across the countries' 800-kilometer (500-mile) shared border. Both sides accused each other of targeting civilian areas with rockets and artillery. Thailand has responded by deploying F-16s and Swedish-made Gripen fighter jets to strike Cambodian military positions.
Thailand and Cambodia share a history of border disputes, though relations have remained largely stable since a deadly 2011 clash that left dozens dead. The last major flare-up centered on the Preah Vihear temple, a historic flashpoint rooted in colonial-era disagreements.
Much of the current dispute stems from maps drawn on differing interpretations of early 20th-century Franco-Siamese treaties, which defined the border between Thailand and Cambodia, then part of French Indochina.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
27 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
The US said it had no choice but to deport them to a third country. Then it sent them home
* The US said it had no choice but to deport them to a third country. Then it sent them home Trump administration seeks to deport more migrants to third countries * Critics ask why migrants can't be deported home instead * Trump tactic stokes fear amid push for mass deportations By Kristina Cooke and Ted Hesson WASHINGTON, - The Trump administration says that some serious criminals need to be deported to third countries because even their home countries won't accept them. But a review of recent cases shows that at least five men threatened with such a fate were sent to their native countries within weeks. President Donald Trump aims to deport millions of immigrants in the U.S. illegally and his administration has sought to ramp up removals to third countries, including sending convicted criminals to South Sudan and Eswatini, formerly known as Swaziland, two sub-Saharan African nations. Immigrants convicted of crimes typically first serve their U.S. sentences before being deported. This appeared to be the case with the eight men deported to South Sudan and five to Eswatini, although some had been released years earlier. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security said in June that third-country deportations allow them to deport people 'so uniquely barbaric that their own countries won't take them back.' Critics have countered that it's not clear the U.S. tried to return the men deported to South Sudan and Eswatini to their home countries and that the deportations were unnecessarily cruel. Reuters found that at least five men threatened with deportation to Libya in May were sent to their home countries weeks later, according to interviews with two of the men, a family member and attorneys. After a U.S. judge blocked the Trump administration from sending them to Libya, two men from Vietnam, two men from Laos and a man from Mexico were all deported to their home nations. The deportations have not previously been reported. DHS did not comment on the removals. Reuters could not determine if their home countries initially refused to take them or why the U.S. tried to send them to Libya. DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin contested that the home countries of criminals deported to third countries were willing to take them back, but did not provide details on any attempts to return the five men home before they were threatened with deportation to Libya. 'If you come to our country illegally and break our laws, you could end up in CECOT, , Guantanamo Bay, or South Sudan or another third country,' McLaughlin said in a statement, referencing and a detention center in the subtropical Florida Everglades. FAR FROM HOME DHS did not respond to a request for the number of third-country deportations since Trump took office on January 20, although there have been thousands to Mexico and hundreds to other countries. The eight men sent to South Sudan were from Cuba, Laos, Mexico, Myanmar, South Sudan and Vietnam, according to DHS. The man DHS said was from South Sudan had a deportation order to Sudan, according to a court filing. The five men sent to Eswatini were from Cuba, Jamaica, Laos, Vietnam and Yemen, according to DHS. White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said the men deported to South Sudan and Eswatini were 'the worst of the worst' and included people convicted in the United States of child sex abuse and murder. 'American communities are safer with these heinous illegal criminals gone,' Jackson said in a statement. The Laos government did not respond to requests for comment regarding the men threatened with deportation to Libya and those deported to South Sudan and Eswatini. Vietnam's foreign ministry spokesperson said on July 17 that the government was verifying information regarding the South Sudan deportation but did not provide additional comment to Reuters. The government of Mexico did not comment. The Trump administration acknowledged in a May 22 court filing that the man from Myanmar had valid travel documents to return to his home country but he was deported to South Sudan anyway. DHS said the man had been convicted of sexual assault involving a victim mentally and physically incapable of resisting. Eswatini's government said on Tuesday that it was still holding the five migrants sent there in isolated prison units under the deal with the Trump administration. 'A VERY RANDOM OUTCOME' The Supreme Court in June allowed the Trump administration to deport migrants to third countries without giving them a chance to show they could be harmed. But the legality of the removals is still being contested in a federal lawsuit in Boston, a case that could potentially wind its way back to the conservative-leaning high court. Critics say the removals aim to stoke fear among migrants and encourage them to 'self deport' to their home countries rather than be sent to distant countries they have no connection with. 'This is a message that you may end up with a very random outcome that you're going to like a lot less than if you elect to leave under your own steam,' said Michelle Mittelstadt, communications director for the non-partisan Migration Policy Institute. Internal U.S. immigration enforcement guidance issued in July said migrants could be deported to countries that had not provided diplomatic assurances of their safety in as little as six hours. While the administration has highlighted the deportations of convicted criminals to African countries, it has also sent asylum-seeking Afghans, Russians and others to Panama and Costa Rica. The Trump administration deported more than 200 Venezuelans accused of being gang members to El Salvador in March, where they were held in the country's CECOT prison without access to attorneys until they were released in a prisoner swap last month. More than 5,700 non-Mexican migrants have been deported to Mexico since Trump took office, according to Mexican government data, continuing a policy that began under former President Joe Biden. The fact that one Mexican man was deported to South Sudan and another threatened with deportation to Libya suggests that the Trump administration did not try to send them to their home countries, according to Trina Realmuto, executive director at the pro-immigrant National Immigration Litigation Alliance. 'Mexico historically accepts back its own citizens,' said Realmuto, one of the attorneys representing migrants in the lawsuit contesting third-country deportations. The eight men deported to South Sudan included Mexican national Jesus Munoz Gutierrez, who had served a sentence in the U.S. for second-degree murder and was directly taken into federal immigration custody afterward, according to Realmuto. Court records show Munoz stabbed and killed a roommate during a fight in 2004. When the Trump administration first initiated the deportation in late May, Mexico's President Claudia Sheinbaum said her government had not been informed. 'If he does want to be repatriated, then the United States would have to bring him to Mexico,' Sheinbaum said at the time. His sister, Guadalupe Gutierrez, said in an interview that she didn't understand why he was sent to South Sudan, where he is currently in custody. She said Mexico is trying to get her brother home. 'Mexico never rejected my brother,' Gutierrez said. 'USING US AS A PAWN' Immigration hardliners see the third-country removals as a way to deal with immigration offenders who can't easily be deported and could pose a threat to the U.S. public. "The Trump administration is prioritizing the safety of American communities over the comfort of these deportees,' said Jessica Vaughan, policy director at the Center for Immigration Studies, which supports lower levels of immigration. The Trump administration in July to take migrants and the Pacific Islands nation of Palau, among others. Under U.S. law, federal immigration officials can deport someone to a country other than their place of citizenship when all other efforts are 'impracticable, inadvisable or impossible.' Immigration officials must first try to send an immigrant back to their home country, and if they fail, then to a country with which they have a connection, such as where they lived or were born. For a Lao man who was almost deported to Libya in early May, hearing about the renewed third-country deportations took him back to his own close call. In an interview from Laos granted on condition of anonymity because of fears for his safety, he asked why the U.S. was 'using us as a pawn?' His attorney said the man had served a prison sentence for a felony. Reuters could not establish what he was convicted of. He recalled officials telling him to sign his deportation order to Libya, which he refused, telling them he wanted to be sent to Laos instead. They told him he would be deported to Libya regardless of whether he signed or not, he said. DHS did not comment on the allegations. The man, who came to the United States in the early 1980s as a refugee when he was four years old, said he was now trying to learn the Lao language and adapt to his new life, 'taking it day by day.' This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Time of India
27 minutes ago
- Time of India
India Won't Bow to 'Bully' Trump's Tariff Threats, Says Ex-Diplomat Rajiv Dogra in Fiery Rebuttal
/ Aug 02, 2025, 03:21PM IST Ex-diplomat Rajiv Dogra fiercely rebukes the former US President's 25% tariff threat against India. Calling Trump "a bully of a rare kind," Dogra says India will not yield to hollow intimidation. The warning comes after Trump announced penalties over India's trade ties with Russia, while ignoring similar dealings by Turkey. In a striking declaration of India's strategic autonomy, Dogra reminded Washington that New Delhi does not depend on the US for exports. He slammed the hypocrisy of selective sanctions and dismissed White House claims of mediation during Operation Sindoor. 'India makes its own decisions,' he said, urging the government to remain firm amid rising trade and geopolitical pressure. As the Indo-US equation enters turbulent waters, India's message is clear: it will chart its course, even if it means weathering the storm.#rajivdogra #donaldtrump #usindiatradetensions #trumpmodi #operationSindoor #indianexports #trumptariffthreat #indianpolitics #strategicautonomy #geopolitics #modivstrump #indiarussia #usforeignpolicy #globaltrade #trumpnews #india #breakingnews #trending #bharat #toi #toibharat #indianews
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
27 minutes ago
- First Post
Trump's tariff toolkit: Lose Bharat, strengthen China, shatter Pax Americana
By treating Bharat as a subordinate to be bullied rather than a partner to be engaged, President Trump risks a rupture that could last far beyond his presidency read more America may soon find that the real cost of its tariffs is not measured in dollars but in lost alliances and diminished influence. Image: X/@RepJoeWilson Seven months into his second term, Donald Trump's presidency appears to be entering uncharted waters—even for those who claim to understand his unconventional political playbook. The former real estate mogul built his political brand on unpredictability, disruption, and a refusal to play by traditional rules. Until recently, this approach seemed to have some method in its madness—a calculated chaos designed to keep rivals off balance and extract concessions in negotiations. But Trump's latest tariff moves—especially imposing a 25 per cent tariff on exports from Bharat—have stripped away the façade of methodical unpredictability, exposing what many now see as unrestrained impulsiveness. In the process, Trump risks undoing years of careful, if uneven, progress in Bharat-US relations. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD This is not just another trade dispute. It marks a deeper failure to understand Bharat—not merely as an emerging economic power, but as a civilisational state with a unique worldview and long memory. By treating it as a pawn in a transactional game, Trump risks alienating the one partner that could have helped secure America's long-term strategic interests in a rapidly changing world order. Limits of a Businessman-President Trump's leadership style has always mirrored his business persona. In his worldview, every international relationship is a negotiation—a zero-sum game where one side wins only if the other loses. Deals, concessions, and optics matter more than shared values or historical context. To him, tariffs are tools of power, not just economic instruments. The logic is simple: inflict maximum pressure, force capitulation, and claim victory. In this narrow calculus, Bharat becomes just another 'trading partner' to be coerced into submission. The 25 per cent tariff, therefore, is not only about correcting trade imbalances with Bharat; it is an attempt to showcase American dominance in the relationship. But this approach fundamentally misunderstands Bharat's ethos and foreign policy DNA. Bharat does not conduct diplomacy as a series of business transactions. Its foreign policy is rooted in a civilisational consciousness that values strategic autonomy, mutual respect, and sovereignty above coercive bargaining. Friendship, for Bharat, is never synonymous with subservience. Any attempt to impose terms through brute economic force risks triggering resistance, not compliance—especially in the long term. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD A History of Distrust Washington's discomfort with Bharat's independent streak is hardly new. During the Cold War, successive US administrations grew frustrated with New Delhi's refusal to align fully with the West. Washington often preferred authoritarian or Islamist regimes that were pliable, even unreliable, over a democratic Bharat unwilling to be dictated to. Pakistan's military establishment, for all its instability, was seen as a more 'manageable' partner than Bharat's noisy democracy with its fiercely independent foreign policy. As Seema Sirohi writes in Friends with Benefits, the Bharat-US relationship has been about 'a thousand heartbreaks and a hundred reunions… a story of inching closer, drifting apart, trying again, getting disappointed, developing new stakes in each other, losing interest, recharging batteries, giving it another shot, succeeding partly, celebrating with high rhetoric, hiding disappointment but strategically leaking true feelings while continuously rebranding the relationship as larger, deeper, and wider, and strengthening the foundation.' Since the early 2000s, however, US administrations—starting with George W Bush—consciously reached out to Delhi, recognising its importance in balancing China's rise. Barack Obama, despite ideological differences, continued to invest in US-Bharat ties. Trump's first term continued this trajectory, with high-profile summits and public bonhomie between leaders of the two countries. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Trump's second-term tariff war has brought that optimism to a grinding halt, though one could sense its beginnings during the Joe Biden era. At a time when Washington should be cementing alliances in the Indo-Pacific to counter China's assertiveness, it is instead alienating its most natural partner. Worse, this follows another strategic misstep: alienating Russia through Nato's eastward expansion, thereby pushing Moscow closer to Beijing. With both Russia and Bharat drifting away, America's much-vaunted Indo-Pacific strategy now looks increasingly fragile. Sindoor and Shifting Perception Recent events have further complicated Washington's calculus. Operation Sindoor—a swift and decisive military action by Bharat—demonstrated capabilities that few believed New Delhi possessed. Within three days, Bharat achieved what many believed was impossible against a nuclear-armed adversary. This single event forced both allies and rivals to reassess the country's military transformation. The US had been wary of rising Bharat for a while, but until Op Sindoor, its concern was largely economic—as was the case during the Biden era. Operation Sindoor brought Bharat's military transformation to the forefront. It signalled that the country was no longer just a counterweight to China but a potential independent pole in global geopolitics. This possibility has alarmed a power-driven West accustomed to using Delhi as a pawn in its broader game against Beijing. If Bharat grows too strong—economically and militarily—it will no longer be a tool of American strategy but a peer competitor shaping a multipolar world order. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Trump's tariffs, therefore, can be read as much about 'making America great again' as about slowing Bharat's rise. A $10 trillion Indian economy within a decade, with established military might, would fundamentally alter global power dynamics, giving New Delhi too much leverage for Washington's liking. Yet this approach is self-defeating. Unlike China, which aims to displace the US as global hegemon, Bharat seeks coexistence, not domination. America's inability to embrace this vision of shared power could cost it a valuable ally at a time when its own global leadership is under strain. A Self-Inflicted Strategic Loss Trump's continuing diatribe against Bharat reflects an enduring inability in the United States to accept partners that do not fit into America's hierarchical worldview. Delhi's insistence on a multipolar order, where no single nation dominates, challenges the very foundations of strategic thinking in Washington, DC. Bharat does not pursue anti-Americanism. It does not seek to undermine US power. Rather, its worldview—rooted in Sanatani philosophy—seeks coexistence and plurality, both in socio-spiritual life and in international politics. It envisions a world where multiple civilisations thrive without hegemony. By failing to understand this nuance, Washington repeatedly mistakes Delhi's independence for defiance, leading to cycles of estrangement and reconciliation. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD By treating Bharat as a subordinate to be bullied rather than a partner to be engaged, Trump risks a rupture that could last far beyond his presidency. Bharat does not easily forgive or forget attempts to compromise its sovereignty. And unlike Pakistan or other US client states, it cannot be bought off with aid packages or military hardware. Conclusion Trump's tariff war represents a classic case of winning battles while losing the war. The immediate goal—extracting better trade terms—may or may not be achieved. But the long-term damage to US-Bharat relations is already evident. Trust has been eroded. Doubts about American intentions have resurfaced. With this, Trump has handed Beijing a strategic victory without China firing a single shot. In a world reshaped by rising powers, America may find that the real cost of its tariffs is not measured in dollars but in lost alliances and diminished influence. Trump may, in the short term, earn a few extra dollars for the US, but in the long term, he risks putting the very idea of Pax-Americana on sale. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD China's Xi Jinping must be the only person laughing right now. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost's views.
