
Map shows Thailand-Cambodia border where UK tourists warned to 'take extra care'
As many as 12 people, including an eight-year-old boy, have been killed in the armed clashes – centred in the Thai Surin province and the Cambodian Oddar Meanchey province – with both sides blaming each other for firing the first shot.
An F-16 jet has been deployed by Thailand, firing into Cambodia multiple times and destroying a military target. Meanwhile, artillery and rockets have been fired from the Cambodian side.
This conflict has been simmering for months – with diplomatic relations deteriorating – and in fact the dispute over the region goes back almost a century.
Clashes have again erupted between Thailand and Cambodia over a long-running border dispute.
The Foreign Office has issued further travel advice to British citizens in Thailand.
A dozen people have been killed, including a boy, aged eight, and a teenager, aged 15, in Thailand.
Both sides have accused the other of firing the first shot.
No one knows if it will boil over and into a full-blown war – but Cambodia has confirmed that it will start military conscription as early as next year.
With scarce information available about the situation, Metro has prepared an explainer for those on the ground and those monitoring it from far away.
At the heart of the conflict are differing interpretations of the colonial-era maps drawn more than a century ago by the French – who once colonised Cambodia – and by Siam (modern-day Thailand).
Cambodia has been using the 1907 map as a reference to claim territory, but Thailand has argued it was never officially accepted.
This ambiguity led to a ruling by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in 1962, which awarded the land and the 11th-century temple Preah Vihear to Cambodia.
Border disputes have long caused tensions between the two neighbours – but nationalist movements have further inflamed them.
Relations hit rock-bottom in May after a Cambodian soldier was killed in an armed confrontation in a disputed border area.
On Thursday, Cambodia downgraded diplomatic relations with Thailand to their lowest level, expelling the Thai ambassador and recalling Cambodian staff from its embassy in Bangkok.
The day before, its neighbour also withdrew its ambassador and expelled the top Cambodian diplomat in protest after five Thai soldiers who were wounded in a land mine blast, one of whom lost part of a leg.
Thailand has since shut all its border points with its neighbour.
Fighting first broke out near the Khmer Hindu temple Ta Muen Thom, along the border of Thailand's Surin province and Cambodia's Oddar Meanchey province.
The Thai military said Cambodian soldiers had opened fire near the temple, and deployed a surveillance drone. Additional forces – armed with heavy weapons, including BM-21 rocket launchers and artillery – were deployed shortly after.
Both sides claimed they were acting in self-defence and blamed the other for the skirmish.
So far, 11 Thai civilians and one soldier have been killed, including a boy, aged eight, and a teenager, aged 15.
Most people were killed in a rocket attack near a supermarket and a gas station in Sisaket province. Another 14 people have also been injured.
It remains unclear if there are any fatalities on the Cambodian side as the government has remained tight-lipped about its losses.
Both nations attract large numbers of British tourists every year, but it is unclear how many citizens are in each country currently.
The Foreign Office has urged travellers from the UK to 'take extra care and stay alert in border areas', saying: 'Take extra care and stay alert in border areas and follow the instructions of local authorities, especially at tourist destinations such as the Preah Vihear temple, the Ta Kwai temple and the Ta Muen Thom temple. More Trending
'There are also unexploded landmines in the border area. Stay on marked paths, especially around Ta Krabey.'
The FCDO confirmed that land borders and crossings between Cambodia and Thailand are temporarily suspended.
Separately, the UK advises against all but essential travel to parts of the south, near the Thailand-Malaysia border, including the Pattani Province, Yala Province, Narathiwat Province and southern Songkhla Province – south of the A43 road between Hat Yai and Sakom, and south of the train line which runs between Hat Yai and Padang Besar.
FCDO also advises against all but essential travel on the Hat Yai to Padang Besar train line that runs through these provinces.
Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@metro.co.uk.
For more stories like this, check our news page.
MORE: Is it safe to travel to Tunisia? Latest advice as UK Foreign Office issues tourist warning
MORE: Nine bar staff arrested for beating on British tourist over £460 bill
MORE: Woman 'filmed herself having sex with Buddhist monks and blackmailed them for £9,000,000'

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Spectator
10 minutes ago
- Spectator
Why France is cracking down on topless tourists
Police have been sent out to patrol France's seaside promenades. Not to chase hardened criminals – but to look for bare-chested tourists. From Les Sables-d'Olonne to Cassis, and in a growing number of coastal towns, local authorities are introducing by-laws banning shirtless men from wandering around in public. The fines are €150 if you're caught walking from the beach to the bakery in swim shorts and flip-flops, but no shirt. Uniformed gendarmes have been instructed to enforce the rules. Posters have gone up at beaches. Police are stopping tourists, handing out tickets and giving lectures. The summer's great threat to republican order, it seems, is the male torso. 'We are not nudists' declared Yannick Moreau, the mayor of Les Sables-d'Olonne, defending the new rules he's implemented as a matter of 'respect' and 'civic-mindedness'. In Cassis, on the Mediterranean coast, the town hall says the aim of the new measures is to 'preserve the elegance of the town'. Even the slogans are sanctimonious – 'Du sable à la ville, on se rhabille', that's 'when going from the beach to the town, we get dressed again.' One mayor, asked if the policy might be seen as heavy-handed, replied simply 'we're not asking people to wear a suit and tie, just a T-shirt'. There's something oddly comforting about it all if it were not for the bigger picture. The French state, for all its troubles, can still mobilise gendarmes to patrol the promenade, hand out fines and preserve a certain idea of public decency. Shirtless tourists, at least, the authorities know how to handle. But when it comes to the country's real problems with violent crime and insecurity, gang warfare, and lawless enclaves, the state increasingly looks powerless. The front page of yesterday's Journal du Dimanche showed a blood-red map of France, marking dozens of towns now gripped by a violence which was once thought to be limited to the banlieues of large towns and cities. Knife attacks, shootings, cars set alight, gang reprisals, even mortar fire. In Béziers, Blagnac, Albi, Lunel, Cavaillon, Metz, the gendarmes are not chasing bare-chested tourists, they're dodging bullets. Police in the small town of Carpentras in the Vaucluse won't go at all into certain housing estates without significant reinforcements. In Béziers, mayor Robert Ménard says his town is experiencing a wave of gangland violence. 'Eighty per cent of the troublemakers,' he told the Journal du Dimanche, 'come from immigration'. In Tarn, the body of a 22-year-old was found after what police believe was a drug-related execution. In Limoges, teenagers are barricading streets and launching attacks on emergency services. In Clermont-Ferrand, officers responding to a noise complaint were ambushed with iron bars. In Pontarlier, grenade blasts and gunfire now rattle quiet residential streets. These are far from isolated incidents. According to Ofast, France's anti-drug agency, the spread of organised crime into provincial towns is now 'deeply entrenched.' Cocaine is no longer a big city vice. It's a national industry. In response, some towns have tried imposing curfews. Others have begged for more police or tighter sentencing. What they often get is silence or lectures about the 'complex roots' of delinquency. Meanwhile, in places like Les Sables-d'Olonne, the authorities continue to defend the €150 fine for not wearing a shirt. The contrast is telling. The state can still act when it wants to. It can deploy uniformed officers to enforce swimwear etiquette. It can issue municipal by-laws about torsos and flip-flops. But faced with criminal networks, urban warfare and a judiciary that barely functions, it hesitates, defers or looks away. It's easier to fine a tourist without a shirt than to deal with drug traffickers on a housing estate. It's human nature to follow the path of least resistance. Policing beachwear is entirely risk-free. The new measures in seaside towns play well with local voters nostalgic for order. There is no national scandal, no debate in the Assemblée Nationale, no risk of accusations of stigmatising anyone, and no complaints from the hard left. It's public order in symbolic form alone: controlled and deeply unserious. But the deeper problem isn't symbolic. It's structural. Robert Ménard has asked to further arm Béziers' municipal police dealing with increasingly violent heavily armed gangs. The state said no. Local prosecutors complain they lack the tools to put violent offenders behind bars. The interior minister announces new plans every few months, but sentences are rarely served in full. There isn't enough space in prisons, not enough police, and not enough will to confront what everyone now sees. The France that worked, quietly, efficiently, locally, is faltering. It has become a theatre of control. You can see it clearly in the small and medium-sized towns that were once the last bastion of republican order. These were places where the state still worked. Where people trusted the police, the mayor, the courts. That's now all slipping away. In town after town, people no longer feel safe. France still knows how to police the small stuff. It can stop a man buying a baguette without a shirt. It can fine him on the spot, with a polite smile and a printed receipt. But when it comes to the real collapse, of order, of confidence, of the state's ability to impose the law where it truly matters, the state shrugs, retreats, or launches yet another working group.


Spectator
10 minutes ago
- Spectator
The state will do anything but fix the migrant crisis
Migrant hotel protests are erupting across the country, as 'tinderbox' Britain catches fire. What began with a series of protests in Epping, Essex, over the alleged sexual assault of a teenage girl by a recently arrived Ethiopian migrant, has now spread, as Brits air long-standing grievances about asylum seekers they have been forced to host in their own communities. A powerful tendency now exists in the British state towards displacement activity Demonstrations have so far been reported in Bournemouth, Southampton and Portsmouth, Norwich, Leeds and Wolverhampton, Sutton-in-Ashfield in Nottinghamshire, Altrincham and even at Canary Wharf in London. With years of unaddressed anger rapidly making themselves felt, the police, pulled in all directions, are struggling to keep up. 'Local commanders are once again being forced to choose between keeping the peace at home or plugging national gaps', admits the head of the Police Federation. Still, it seems there is one thing the government is more than happy to devote resources to: trawling the internet for anti-migrant sentiment. The Telegraph reports that an elite team of police officers convened by the Home Office is set to monitor social media to flag up early signs of unrest. Working out of the National Police Coordination Centre (NPoCC) in Westminster the new National Internet Intelligence Investigations team will 'maximise social media intelligence' gathering in order to 'help local forces manage public safety threats and risks'. If this new division was just about intelligence-gathering that would be one thing. It's true that social media is in invaluable resource for following events on the ground at such gatherings, while local Facebook groups are often where grassroots protests are organised. Yet we know that when it comes to the British state and social media, censorship and punishment for online speech is never far behind. Ever since Sir Keir Starmer repeatedly linked the Southport unrest last year with social media, the idea has firmly taken root in Whitehall that the best way to stop unrest is to aggressively police the internet. Ofcom, the broadcast regulator, already takes this view, and the link has even been drawn in Department for Education guidance on how to talk to schoolchildren about the Southport disorder. In a recent report, the police inspectorate said that that forces must be 'better prepared and resourced to monitor, analyse, use and respond to online content', which it argues was a risk to public safety. This general zeal for social-media policing is why Big Brother Watch believes the new unit is very likely to infringe on free speech. The investigations team is 'Orwellian' and 'disturbing', says interim director Rebecca Vincent, creating the possibility that it 'will attempt to interfere with online content' as other government bodies are known to have done during Covid. As if there weren't enough threats to free speech already. This week age verification provisions in the latest stage of the Online Safety Act (OSA) kicked in, meaning that some footage of protests is now inaccessible on social media for many users. Not even parliamentary privilege is safe from the censorship regime. Katie Lam's searing April speech on the rape gangs, in which she quoted court transcripts and survivors, could not be watched on X without age verification. We are beginning to look like North Korea with rainbow flags: for the public's 'safety', footage exposing grievous failures of the British state now cannot be viewed in the UK. Little wonder, given the OSA explicitly earmarks content relating to 'child sexual abuse' and 'illegal immigration and people smuggling' as the 'kinds of illegal content and activity that platforms need to protect users from'. The Conservatives, who bequeathed us this blank cheque for digital authoritarianism, certainly need to take a long, hard look at themselves. The claims that the OSA is merely about restricting access to pornography has been exposed as a mere fig leaf. And still things could still get worse. As the Free Speech Union has noted, shortly after last year's riots, the Centre for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), a pro-censorship lobby group with ties to Morgan McSweeney, 'hosted a closed-door meeting under the Chatham House rule to discuss the role of social media in civil unrest'. In attendance were officials from the Home Office, the Department of Science, Information and Technology, Ofcom and other organisations. The CCDH proposals that emerged included amending the OSA to 'grant Ofcom additional 'emergency response' powers to fight 'misinformation' that poses a 'threat' to 'national security' and 'the health or safety of the public''. This would give Secretary of State Peter Kyle the ability to directly flag unapproved content to be taken down at a time of 'crisis'. Should the unrest continue this could well be coming down the track. What all this illustrates is just how ill-equipped the people in charge are to deal with Britain's problems, as The Spectator's Madeline Grant noted earlier this week. A powerful tendency now exists in the British state towards displacement activity. Spin doctors 'manage' the news. Police surveil social media. The government shuffles asylum seekers from hotel to hotel, or to HMOs, or even to privately rented accommodation (which it uses your own taxes to outbid you for). For his part, the prime minister has been tweeting about the women's football. As the unrest grows, leading politicians continue doggedly insist that Britain remains a 'a successful multi-ethnic, multi-faith country'. In reality, there are answers to the asylum hotels crisis, it's just that the government simply lacks the will to act. Large numbers of illegal migrants need to be deported, while those that are here should be placed in a secure holding facility somewhere remote. What is surely obvious by now where they should not be: in hotels, in an Essex market town 500 yards from a school; on the Bournemouth beachfront; in the London's financial district; in a Leeds suburb right next to a shopping centre. As it is, however, it seems the regime will try anything and everything before addressing people's real concerns.


New Statesman
10 minutes ago
- New Statesman
Will Keir Starmer recognise Palestine?
Photo byThe image stays with you: this week it has covered the front pages of the world's newspapers. A mother, herself worn down and bruised by 21 months of conflict, cradles her child, who is swaddled in a bin bag. The child has lost a third of its body weight, it now weighs 6kg. Such images are not unique in Gaza, where starvation is general to a community after the blockade of humanitarian aid. The international community is looking on in horror, pleading with Israel to reconsider. On Sunday, the Israeli government issued a temporary reprieve allowing deliveries of aid into parts of Gaza. In the UK, there is pressure on the government to officially recognise the state of Palestine. This pressure originally mounted from the backbenches, but now, even members of the cabinet (Shabana Mahmood, Wes Streeting and Hilary Benn) are ramping up their private calls for Starmer to recognise Palestinian statehood. Over the weekend, 220 MPs from nine political parties – including 131 Labour MPs – signed a letter calling for the immediate recognition of Palestine. In the run up to the 2024 general election, the party's manifesto included a pledge to recognise a Palestinian state as a contribution towards a renewed peace process which results in a two-state solution, but a year on, and both Starmer and his Foreign Secretary, David Lammy, are yet to make good on this promise. The government's current position is that the UK will acknowledge Palestinian statehood as part of a peace process, but only at the point of 'maximum impact'. On Saturday, Starmer doubled down, rejecting renewed calls for the UK to reconsider and immediately recognise a Palestinian state, reasserting the UK's alignment with the US on this issue (a move which one cabinet minister told The Times was 'deeply inadequate'). The opportunity for Starmer to recognise the Palestinian state has presented itself more than once. Most recently, it was thought that Starmer might wait to go ahead with recognition alongside the French President, Emmanuel Macron. The UK and France argue a historical responsibility for the continuation of a Palestinian community in the Middle East, and so plenty suspected the countries would make a dual statement. But the opportunity for joint Franco-UK recognition has now passed. On Thursday 24 July, Macron announced France's intention to recognise Palestine at the upcoming UN general assembly. (Starmer, on the other hand, almost simultaneously released a statement sticking to the government line). Backbench MPs are losing their patience. Rachael Maskell, who lost the Labour whip last week following her involvement in the welfare rebellion, believes 'time is running out' for any governmental recognition of Palestine to have its desired effect. 'We should have recognised Palestine many, many years ago,' she said, 'it's been Labour party policy since 2014'. Maskell was one of 60 MPs to sign a letter to the Foreign Secretary in July calling for Palestine's immediate recognition. Ian Byrne, the Labour MP for Liverpool West Derby agreed: 'We had a vote over a decade ago about Palestine. [Recognition] was in the manifesto. What we're seeing now with the genocide, there's the political will now from all sides of the house to do something.' Byrne said now is the time for the UK to step up and take international responsibility. 'The UK has the opportunity to do the right thing. We are one of the world leaders and sometimes you need a leader to take the lead.' He criticised the government for acting 'extremely slowly' on Gaza. Even more moderate back-bench Labour MPs are ramping up the pressure on the government. One member of the 2024 intake told me, 'It's beyond horrific, we have to seriously consider our relationship with Israel.' Israel has now offered a brief cessation of its full scale aid blockade, and Lammy has said the channelling of aid into the Gaza strip must be 'urgently accelerated'. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe No country is likely to get involved in this conflict militarily (unless a UN peacekeeping force is assembled), instead, more substantial diplomatic levers could be pulled such as suspending the UK-Israel trade agreement and imposing sanctions not only on the most outspoken ministers (as the UK has already done with Smotrich and Ben Gvir) but all Israeli political and military leaders involved in the conflict. Many Labour MPs would agree with this. Byrne called for an 'arms embargo, military cooperation to be ended, and comprehensive sanctions'. And it is not just Labour. Kit Malthouse, the Conservative MP for North West Hertfordshire said Lammy could end up in the Hague over his inaction on Gaza as he called on the government to press for an immediate ceasefire. This week the Daily Express carried a front page bearing the face of an emaciated Palestinian child crying 'enough is enough': concern over the plight of Palestinians now transcends party politics. This is unlikely to be an electoral downfall for Keir Starmer. But, with the pro-Gaza independent MPs taking seats last summer otherwise ordained for Labour, it is obvious that this is damaging to the party on its left flank. The Prime Minister may continue to prevaricate. But were we at the polls tomorrow, votes would be shed because of it. [See more: The abomination of Obama's nation] Related