logo
How Cambodia-Thailand border dispute affects communities  – DW – 06/25/2025

How Cambodia-Thailand border dispute affects communities – DW – 06/25/2025

DW10 hours ago

Following a clash in May, borders have been closed and opening hours reduced. Locals used to crossing with ease say their lives are being disrupted. Tensions are also affecting politics and the economy.
In recent months, long-running border tensions between Thailand and Cambodia have been reignited following an incident in May during which one Cambodian soldier was killed.
The death occurred when Cambodian soldiers were digging trenches near an area Thailand disputed was theirs, before gunfire was exchanged.
Tensions have been heightened ever since, with both sides massing troops at different checkpoints along the 800-kilometer (480-mile) border.
In recent days, Thailand has closed a border at Chong Sai Taku in Buriram, while Cambodia has closed two checkpoints in its Oddar Meanchey province.
Thailand and Cambodia have 17 official crossings, but the busiest border connects Sa Kaeo province in Thailand with Cambodia's Poipet.
Both Thai and Cambodian nationals cross here for work, while the border is also a popular place for Thais to visit Cambodia's casinos. International tourists also use the crossing.
But following the clash at Chong Bok, far to the east near Laos, Thailand decided to reduce operating hours at Sa Kaeo by eight hours.
The crossing now opens between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., having previously been open from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. That change has affected day-to-day life for those living and working nearby.
To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video
Ball, a Thai citizen, owns a cannabis dispensary in the border town of Aranyaprathet. He says his sales have declined by nearly three quarters since the border changes.
"Before the fighting, the business grew very well, I was earning good income," he told DW. "Since last week, it's affected us directly. After 4 p.m. it's very quiet, but normally it's very crowded. More than 70% of my business has been affected."
Lim Num Hong stands patiently as closing time approaches. A Thai citizen of Chinese descent, Hong works at a small taxi stand only steps away from the crossing into Cambodia. Usually, he picks up business from customers wanting to travel to Bangkok.
But since the border conflict of late, that's all changed.
"I've had no bookings for two days. One booking is enough for one day because it's a higher cost to Bangkok. In four days, I only had one booking. The conditions have changed, people can't come in over the border easily, like the customers from the casinos," he told DW.
Mon, who didn't provide his surname, is a Thai national from Sa Kaeo. He says he has lost his job at a casino in Cambodia.
"I worked in customer service at a casino in Cambodia for one year. My job has finished three or four days ago since it was announced the timing of the border changed. I'm back home and have no job right now," he told DW.
Thailand's army has prohibited Thais from crossing the border to work in the Poipet bars and casinos since June 17.
Economic impact of Thailand-Cambodia tensions
According to Thailand's Ministry of Labour, Thailand hosts approximately 500,000 Cambodian migrant workers.
Vatey Mony is from Cambodia but lives in Sa Kaeo with her sister. She runs a small food stall at a market in Aranyaprathet, selling home-cooked meals to Thais, Cambodians and tourists. But she's having second thoughts about staying at the border.
"The border closes early, it's very quiet right now, so I suffer from income loss. My second plan is me and my sister may have to go back to Cambodia. I feel scared and worried about any fighting in the future," she told DW.
Trade has already been affected because of the rising tensions. Cambodia has banned fruit, vegetables, gasoline and propane imports as of Sunday.
Thailand in turn has reportedly banned Cambodian motorcycles entering the kingdom at all land checkpoints.
Tita Sanglee, an associate fellow at the ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute, said continued escalations will harm both countries economically.
"I don't see the Thai-Cambodian conflict escalating into a full-blown shooting war. Real escalation is more likely on the economic front," she told DW.
"Both sides are now taking steps to undercut each other's profits, with border closures playing a key role. Both sides have a lot to lose. Thailand relies significantly on Cambodian labour and exports a significant amount to Cambodia. Yet these Thai exports fuel, machinery, beverages, are critical goods in everyday consumption,' she added.
In 2024, bilateral trade between Thailand and Cambodia reached over $4 billion, while Thailand is Cambodia's fourth-largest trading partner.
Suthien Pewchan is from Sisaket, Thailand, close to where the Chong Bok clash occurred in May. He said at the moment there is no shortage of goods.
"There is no shortage. But we are prohibited from collecting food [like wild mushrooms] from the forest. Right now, we are fully prepared. There hasn't been any [more] fighting, but people are very alert. There is already a contingency plan if anything happens again like in 2011," he told DW.
In 2008 and 2011, Thai and Cambodian soldiers exchanged fire over a century-old dispute based on territorial claims surrounding the Preah Vihear Temple.
Dozens of troops were killed between both countries before a ceasefire was agreed. In 2015, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that the area belonged to Cambodia.
Cambodia now wants the ICJ to intervene again and solve the Chong Bok land dispute, as well as several other border disputes with Thailand. Phnom Penh sent a letter last week to the ICJ, but Thailand is keen, however, to solve it through bilateral relations.
"Cambodia wants to take the current conflict to the ICJ because they have had success there in the past," Zachary Abuza, a Southeast Asia expert at the Lowy Institute, told DW.
"Thailand wants to use their economic power, they really think they have significant economic leverage," he added.
The dispute over the border has also caused political turmoil in Thailand.
A recording of a conversation between Thai Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra and Cambodia's former Prime Minister Hun Sen was leaked to the media in which Paetongtarn is heard criticising a Thai military commander related to the border dispute.
The recording led to Thailand's Bhumjaithai Party, the second biggest party in government, quit the ruling coalition led by Paetongtarn's Pheu Thai Party. This has left analysts questioning the future of the embattled prime minister.
"The Thai-Cambodian border dispute has turned into a full-blown political crisis in Thailand. said Thitinan Pongsudhirak, a political science professor at Thailand's Chulalongkorn University told DW.
"As Paetongtarn's premiership becomes untenable amid her political isolation and impending government collapse, Thai politics is in a tailspin, whereas Thai-Cambodian relations are set for tension and confrontation for the foreseeable future," Thitinan added.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Iran: Is the cost of closing the Strait of Hormuz too high? – DW – 06/25/2025
Iran: Is the cost of closing the Strait of Hormuz too high? – DW – 06/25/2025

DW

time3 hours ago

  • DW

Iran: Is the cost of closing the Strait of Hormuz too high? – DW – 06/25/2025

Iran has struck back, but the Strait of Hormuz remains open. Why hasn't Tehran carried out its threat?China and Iran's neighbors may have affecte the decision? For a few days, the world held its breath. It seems the conflict between Israel, the US and Iran is not going to escalate any further, at least for now. Iran opted to save face by launching an attack on a US military base in Qatar, which the stock market interpreted as a de-escalatory gesture. This retaliatory strike by Tehran was "loud enough for headlines, quiet enough not to shake the oil market's foundations," Stephen Innes of SPI Asset Management commented to Reuters. Immediately after the strike on Monday evening, the oil price fell again sharply. And yet Iran holds a powerful trump card. It could do immense damage to the global economy by blockading the Strait of Hormuz. But would this really be to its advantage — or would it be more of an own goal? The US Energy Information Administration (EIA) says that "Iran's economy is relatively diversified compared with many other Middle Eastern countries." However, the goods produced by the country's industry are primarily sold on the domestic market. The export of oil and petroleum products is therefore an important source of income for the government. These constitute more than 17% of the country's total exports, with natural gas at 12%. According to the EIA, Iran was the fourth-largest producer of crude oil among the OPEC countries in 2023, and in 2022 it was the world's third-largest producer of dry gas (natural gas that is at least 85% methane, containing only negligible quantities of condensable gases such as hydrogen). Although it has been subject to sanctions for many years, this has not prevented the Iranian regime from exporting oil. China in particular has benefited: In 2023, it took almost 90% of the oil exported by Iran. In March 2024, the Financial Times quoted Javad Owji, Iran's Minister of Petroleum at the time, saying that Iran's oil exports "generated more than 35 billion dollars" in 2023. According to the World Bank, between April and December 2023 the oil sector represented more than 8% of Iran's GDP. And based on estimates from the data analysis company Vortexa, it is believed to have exported even more the following year. Iran would therefore damage itself if it blocked the Strait of Hormuz. Not only would its own oil revenue be affected, it would also upset its trading partner China, which profits from buying the oil at low cost. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video The London-based TV station Iran International estimates that Tehran sells its oil at a 20% discount on the world market price, because its buyers risk getting into trouble on account of the US sanctions. The broadcaster explained that Chinese refineries are the biggest buyers of Iran's illegal consignments of oil. Intermediaries mix it with deliveries from other countries, and the oil is then declared in China as having been imported from Singapore or other countries of origin. According to Rystad Energy, an independent energy research company based in Norway, China imports a total of almost 11 million barrels of crude oil per day, around 10% of which comes from Iran. A blockade would also have caused trouble for Iran's neighbors. Kuwait, Iraq and the United Arab Emirates also transport their oil through the passage. In a post on Linkedin, the economist Justin Alexander, a Gulf region analyst, commented that if Tehran were to close the strait, this would "undermine remaining alliances" it still has with countries in the region. Whether Iran could actually maintain a blockade is also doubtful. Homayoun Falakshahi from the analytics firm Kpler told German TV that he believed a blockade would provoke a swift and forceful military response from both the US and European countries, and that Iran would only have been able to close the strait for a day or two. Furthermore, if Iran's economic situation were to deteriorate even further, it would go down very badly with the Iranian people. Djavad Salehi-Isfahani, professor of economics at Virginia Tech in the US, told DW that the standard of living in Iran had already dropped to the level of 20 years ago as a result of sanctions. These apply not only to the oil industry, but also to international payment transactions with Iran, which drives up inflation. This has been rising steeply since the beginning of the year, to more than 38.7% in May 2025 compared with May 2024. The combination of sanctions and the low exchange rate is making daily life ever more expensive for people in Iran.

NATO members step up spending, but doubts about US remain – DW – 06/25/2025
NATO members step up spending, but doubts about US remain – DW – 06/25/2025

DW

time4 hours ago

  • DW

NATO members step up spending, but doubts about US remain – DW – 06/25/2025

Most NATO allies promised to ramp up defense spending and reaffirmed their "ironclad" commitment to mutual defense. But there are lingering concerns over the scale and scope of US engagement. From the perspective of European NATO allies, it all went to plan: A short, one-page and five-point declaration, a nice group photo and even dinner with the Dutch king and queen. At the NATO summit at The Hague, US President Donald Trump was also in good spirits. When he addressed the press, Trump claimed credit for ending the war in Iran and for getting NATO allies to increase their defense spending to 5% of their national GDPs by 2035. He praised European members of the alliance for "the love and passion they showed for their countries," but also said they needed the US. He hailed the new pledge as a "big win for Europe and for western civilization." The declaration says the allies will spend 5% on defense, split into two parts. At least 3.5% of GDP will be spent on hard defense – that includes purchase of weapons – and up to 1.5% will go towards other defense-related investments that enhance military mobility and protect against cyber attacks. The trajectory and balance of spending will be reviewed in the next four years. Yet not all NATO members are fully on board. President Trump called out Spain for refusing to increase spending and warned he would make the country pay more through trade. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video Spain is the lowest NATO spender at less than 1.3% and has only recently agreed to meet the 2% target that was made a decade ago. Observers said that political turmoil at home made it nearly impossible for Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez to agree to the 5% goal. Tens of thousands protested in Madrid last week after a senior leader of Sanchez' socialist party was accused of corruption and the opposition called for the prime minister to resign. Sanchez asked NATO for an exemption and said Spain would achieve the military capabilities that NATO had asked for but that 2% of GDP would be enough for that. Poland, which is leading in defense spending and already this year announced plans to increase it to 4.7% of its GDP, was not happy. "We believe that any deviation from this principle by any member country is a bad example," Polish Defense Minister Władysław Kosiniak-Kamysz said. He may have had a point. Slovakia soon piggybacked on Spain and also refused to meet the target. "The Slovak Republic has other priorities in the coming years than armament," Prime Minister Robert Fico posted on X. "The Slovak Republic must, similarly to Spain, reserve the sovereign right to decide at what pace and in what structure it is prepared to increase the budget." Belgian Foreign Minister Maxime Prevot told the local press his country "may not have done so by making a noisy statement like Spain, but I can assure you that for weeks our diplomats have been working hard to obtain the flexibility mechanisms that could help to lighten the burden of the Belgian effort.' But even if most allies do reach the 5% target, there is lingering uncertainty over the US' commitment to the alliance. On his way to the summit, President Trump said there were "numerous definitions" of Article 5 – NATO's mutual defense clause. After his arrival, however, he reassured NATO allies that the US was with them "all the way." Still, some damage control was required. "Stop worrying," NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte said at the press conference. "The United States is totally committed to NATO." In the summit declaration the allies then reaffirmed an "ironclad commitment" to collective defense as enshrined in Article 5, "an attack on one is an attack on all." Kristine Berzina, Washington DC-based managing director of the German Marshall Fund (GMF) Geostrategy North, who is currently at The Hague to attend the summit, told DW that in a way, President Trump was right. But that this was hardly the perfect time to deliberate on the nuances of the clause. She said while it was left on individual members to choose the extent of their support to an ally under attack, the only time Article 5 has been invoked was following the 9/11 attacks on the United States. "The US has been the beneficiary of Article 5 and that's the part that President Trump should remember," she said. There are also concerns that over time, the US may dial down its support to NATO. "Later this year we can expect the US to consult allies on its global force posture – that will likely be reduced military presence in Europe and then focus on how the Europeans can fill those gaps," Rafael Loss, a policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, told DW. But he added that the good news was that the US wasn't "dumping everything on the Europeans suddenly." Berzina of the GMF said there was already a conversation about how to compensate Europe for a reduction in troops and assets. "It's possible the US might deploy more nukes in allied countries as a deterrent against adversaries."

NATO allies pledge 5% on defense to keep US on board – DW – 06/25/2025
NATO allies pledge 5% on defense to keep US on board – DW – 06/25/2025

DW

time5 hours ago

  • DW

NATO allies pledge 5% on defense to keep US on board – DW – 06/25/2025

Most NATO allies promised to ramp up defense spending and reaffirmed their "ironclad" commitment to mutual defense. But there are lingering concerns over the scale and scope of US engagement. From the perspective of the European NATO allies, it all went to plan: A short, one page and five point declaration, a nice group photo and even dinner with the Dutch king and queen. US President Donald Trump was in good spirits at the NATO summit at The Hague. When he addressed the press, Trump claimed credit for ending the war in Iran, and for getting the NATO allies to increase their defense spending to 5% of their national GDPs by 2035. He praised the European members of the alliance for "the love and passion they showed for their countries," but also said they needed the US. He hailed the new pledge as a "big win for Europe and for western civilization." The declaration says the allies will spend 5% on defense but split it in two parts. At least 3.5% of GDP will be spent on hard defense – that includes purchase of weapons – and up to 1.5% will go towards other defense-related investments that enhance military mobility and protect against cyber attacks. The trajectory and balance of spending will be reviewed in the next four years. Yet not all NATO members are fully on board. President Trump called out Spain for refusing to increase spending and warned he would make the country pay more through trade. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video Spain is the lowest NATO spender at less than 1.3% and has only recently agreed to meet the 2% target that was made a decade ago. Observers said the political turmoil at home made it nearly impossible for Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez to agree to the 5% goal. Tens of thousands protested in Madrid last week after a senior leader of Sanchez' socialist party was accused of corruption and the opposition called for the prime minister to resign. Sanchez asked NATO for an exemption and said Spain would achieve the military capabilities that Nato had asked for but that 2% of GDP would be enough for that. Poland, which is leading in defense spending and already this year announced plans to increase it to 4.7% of its GDP, was not happy. "We believe that any deviation from this principle by any member country is a bad example," Polish Defense Minister Władysław Kosiniak-Kamysz said. He may have had a point. Slovakia soon piggybacked on Spain and also refused to meet the target. "The Slovak Republic has other priorities in the coming years than armament," Prime Minister Robert Fico posted on X. "The Slovak Republic must, similarly to Spain, reserve the sovereign right to decide at what pace and in what structure it is prepared to increase the budget." Belgian Foreign Minister Maxime Prevot told the local press his country "may not have done so by making a noisy statement like Spain, but I can assure you that for weeks our diplomats have been working hard to obtain the flexibility mechanisms that could help to lighten the burden of the Belgian effort,' But even if most allies do reach the 5% target, there is lingering uncertainty over the US' commitment to the alliance. On his way to the summit President Trump said there were "numerous definitions" of Article 5 – NATO's mutual defense clause. After his arrival however, he reassured the US was with the NATO allies "all the way." Still, the European allies had to do some damage control. "Stop worrying," NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte said at the press conference. "The United States is totally committed to NATO." In the summit declaration the allies then reaffirmed an "ironclad commitment" to collective defense as enshrined in Article 5, "an attack on one is an attack on all." Kristine Berzina, Washington DC-based managing director of the German Marshall Fund (GMF) Geostrategy North, who is currently at The Hague to attend the summit, told DW that in a way, President Trump was right. But that this was hardly the perfect time to deliberate on the nuances of the clause. She said while it was left on individual members to choose the extent of their support to an ally under attack, the only time Article 5 has been invoked was following the September 11th attacks on the United States. "The US has been the beneficiary of Article 5 and that's the part that President Trump should remember," she said. There are also concerns that over time, the US may dial down its support to NATO. "Later this year we can expect the US to consult allies on its global force posture – that will likely be reduced military presence in Europe and then focus on how the Europeans can fill those gaps," Rafael Loss, a policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) told DW. But he added that the good news was that the US wasn't "dumping everything on the Europeans suddenly." Berzina of the GMF said there was already a conversation about how to compensate Europe for a reduction in troops and assets. "It's possible the US might deploy more nukes in allied countries as a deterrent against adversaries."

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store