Why Cambodia and Thailand were involved in a decades-long, deadly dispute
Article content
The truce was brokered under the mediation of Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, the current chair of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). The agreement comes after fighting between the two countries' forces left at least 35 people dead, including civilians, and displaced thousands near the disputed frontier.
Article content
Article content
Article content
Article content
Tensions first escalated in May, when a Cambodian soldier was killed in a clash of cross-border firing.
Article content
Since then, both countries have put border restrictions on one another, with Cambodia banning imports like fruits and vegetables from Thailand, as well as stopping the import of power and internet services. Thailand stopped almost all crossing over the border, apart from a few cases.
Article content
Article content
In recent weeks, both countries also increased military presences alongside the borders.
Article content
Last Thursday, Thailand claimed that at 7:35 a.m., Cambodia's military deployed drones to conduct surveillance of Thai troops near the border. Cambodia allegedly opened fire alongside the border at 8:20 a.m., prompting Thailand to retaliate. Thai authorities also accused Cambodia of using heavy weaponry that caused damage to homes and public facilities.
Article content
Cambodia, however, provided a different story to what happened. They claimed that Thai troops crossed into a disputed area near a temple at 6:30 a.m. and installed barbed wire. They then flew a drone around 7 a.m. and fired warning shots at 8:30, before launching a pre-emptive strike at 8:46, using excessive force, according to Cambodian officials.
Article content
Article content
What followed was five days of fighting along the border that left many injured and displaced.
Article content
Article content
The two countries share a land border stretching over 800 kilometres, a region that has seen repeated flare-ups. The dispute largely traces back to a 1907 map drawn during French colonial rule, which Cambodia uses to support its claims to territory. Thailand, however, argues the map is inaccurate and does not reflect the legitimate boundary.
Article content
After deadly skirmishes in 2011 that left about 20 people dead and forced thousands to flee, Cambodia returned to the ICJ, and in 2013, the court reaffirmed its earlier ruling.
Article content
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Japan Forward
an hour ago
- Japan Forward
Two Atomic Bombs by America Ended the Asia-Pacific War ー Was There a Third Option?
Every August 6, on the anniversary of the atomic bomb attack against Hiroshima and Nagasaki, an argument is remade. It reasons that Harry Truman, president of the United States of America, had two choices to end the Asia-Pacific War. He could force a surrender through the use of nuclear weapons or proceed with an invasion of the Japanese home islands. According to the contention, the option of the atomic bomb attack was the better of the two. It was touted as quicker, with an ultimately lower death toll. This assertion is nonsense, and always has been. There were never two options ー there were three. The third was to do what 99.9% of generals, commanders and statesmen have done throughout the history of warfare: Drop the insistence of unconditional surrender and negotiate. In this year of 2025, the two-option argument is even more nonsensical than usual. There are ongoing wars for which the option of negotiation will inevitably prevail. They include the Israel-Iran War and the war between Russia and Ukraine. Satellite image showing the entrance to a tunnel destroyed in a US airstrike, at a nuclear facility in Isfahan, central Iran, on June 22. (provided by Maxar Technologies, Reuters via Kyodo) Inappropriate Comparisons Curiously, when it comes to Israel-Iran, US President Donald Trump has been doing his best to draw parallels with the Asia-Pacific War and its dual option narrative. On June 17 he announced that he sought the "unconditional surrender" of Iran. In the wake of the US bombing of the Iranian Fordo nuclear facility, he evoked Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Both the 1945 atomic bombs and his strike on Iran "ended the war," he proclaimed. It is possible that President Trump is trying to pull the rug out from underneath Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu by insisting that the problem of the Iranian nuclear program has been resolved and further military action is not required. A more likely scenario, however, is that he is attempting to magnify the scope of his achievement. In any event, the Hiroshima/Nagasaki parallel is ridiculous. Iran has not been militarily defeated (let alone forced to surrender unconditionally). Moreover, the failure of the US strike against the Iranian nuclear program makes negotiations even more certain. Inevitability of Negotiations Between Russia and Ukraine When it comes to the Russia-Ukraine War, differences between it and the Asia-Pacific War are undeniably stark. There will be no unconditional surrender from either of the combatants. That war has reached a stalemate and will end with a ceasefire, followed by a negotiated agreement. President Trump has famously attempted to effectuate such a deal. Some reports say he suggests allowing the Russians to keep most of what they occupy. Meanwhile, Ukraine gains a measure of security assuredness through the increased presence of American business interests. In particular, that would come within the mining sector. President Trump has portrayed Russian President Vladimir Putin as both reasonable and conciliatory. The initial aim of Putin was to wipe Ukraine off the map but he presently seems content to settle for the eastern regions that he presently holds. It is quite a compromise on the part of Putin, Trump has suggested. Trump has also focused on the loss of life extracted by the war, implying that loss of territory is preferable to continued Ukrainian casualties. The Japan of 1945 was asking for considerably less than President Trump is prepared to concede to the Russians. And far more lives were in the balance. On the eve of the Hiroshima attack, the Japanese were merely seeking to preserve the integrity of the imperial system via assurances that the Emperor would not be put on trial. The Allies were also fully aware of this reality as they had broken the Japanese codes. Yet, the demand for unconditional surrender was maintained. Atomic bombing of Hiroshima (©US Army via Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum, HO) The Belligerent Mindset of Unconditional Surrender Unconditional surrender is a rarely exercised option, not a default setting. Having demanded unconditional surrender, a belligerent power does not acquire justification in resorting to war crimes when the price of total victory becomes too steep. Moreover, perceived or real, the war crimes of one's adversary do not legitimize one's own. Many nonetheless claim that the Japanese militarist regime was so abhorrent that the ends justify the means. Even when those means constitute an unconditional surrender obtained via nuclear attack. This is an argument that could perhaps be made by an Asian whose country had been subjected to colonization. When forwarded by a member of the West, as it generally is, a measure of ignorance or hypocrisy is more than often present. There are two ways of interpreting the Asia-Pacific War. The first is as a war between Asia in tandem with the West, against the Japanese aggressor. The second is as an imperial war for control over imperial possessions, conducted by combatants universally devoid of clean hands. Unsurprisingly, the West prefers the first of these scenarios. The second scenario is accurate. In earlier articles for JAPAN Forward, I have suggested that those prepared to justify the nuclear attacks on the basis of their success in comprehensively destroying the culture of Japanese imperialism should also recognize the impact of Japan in bringing down the ethos that buttressed the Western imperial presence in Asia. The Western empires, the British Empire in particular, were sustained by the myth of white supremacy. The ritualized humiliation that the Japanese wrought upon the white imperialists captured in Asia destroyed this myth, and brought forward the timetable for Asian self-determination by a generation at least. A Clean Break with the Past A case could further be made that it was precipitous for Japan to lose its empire at a stroke. Under that perception, it was bad both for the colonized people of Asia and for Japan itself. Asia was not freed by the fall of Japan. Subhas Chandra Bosesits in the distinguished visitor's box of the Japanese parliament listening to Japanese Prime Minister Tojo declare support for Indian Independence, 16th June 1943. (©Netaji Museum and Centre for Studies in Himalayan Languages Society & Culture, Giddha Pahar, Darjeeling district, West Bengal) Following surrender, the Western colonial powers attempted reassert control, often with the assistance of Japanese troops kept at arms. These efforts, however, were ultimately for nought. The carefully crafted myth of white superiority that had allowed so few to control so many was a casualty of the war. Colonial presence within high density Asia could not be reclaimed. The slow and painful colony disbursement that the Western powers endured over the next 30 years was an ordeal that the Japanese might be glad to have avoided. Complimentary Aims Arguments against the demand for unconditional surrender are just as strong. The most compelling can be found in the manner in which the US and Japan coordinated their aims after the Japanese surrender. One of the principal concerns of the Japanese throughout the 1920s and 30s was the direction in which China would ultimately go. Nineteenth-century exploitation by the imperial West had left the Chinese government impotent, leading to its fall in 1912. From 1912 until 1949, China was fractured. Two regimes emerged as potential unifying forces: the right wing Kuomintang (KMT) of Chiang Kai-shek, and the Communist Party under Mao Zedong. A scene from a painting of Chiang Kai-Shek in the Kinmen museum (©Robert D Eldridge) The Japanese were no less adamant than the United States of America that the Communists should not prevail. As with America, they sought to be the voice that a governing rightwing Chinese administration could not ignore. In short, America and Japan had the same fundamental aim when it came to China. They both sought to be the dominant influence over a ruling rightwing regime. Unsurprisingly, after Japan's surrender, the Japanese forces based within China eagerly cooperated with America by acting in the interests of the KMT. In occupied Japan itself, after a brief period, the US concluded that its fundamental aims and those of Japan within Asia were largely complementary. Many lives would have been saved if this reality had been acted upon prior to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Showa Emperor and General Douglas MacArthur. Japan's postwar constitution was drafted on General MacArthur's orders. Three Options, Not Two Arguments for and against the morality and merit of the atomic attacks against Hiroshima and Nagasaki exist in abundance and will continue to be advanced for generations to come. However, the US had more than a duality of options. It could have ended the war through negotiation - the manner in which the vast majority of wars are concluded. This is the 80th anniversary of the Hiroshima attack. With negotiations inevitable in the Russia-Ukraine War, one hopes that the nonsense of the two-option argument has finally become clear. Moving forward, that debate should be directed towards the legitimate arguments that exist — both for and against those attacks. RELATED: Author: Paul de Vries Find other reviews and articles by the author on Asia Pacific history on JAPAN Forward.
CBC
7 hours ago
- CBC
Hong Kong cancels passports, bans financial support for wanted overseas activists
Social Sharing Hong Kong authorities on Monday strengthened a crackdown on 16 overseas-based activists who were previously targeted by bounties on suspicion of endangering national security, implementing measures that include banning financial support to them and cancelling passports for most of them. The activists were among 19 people who were targeted with arrest warrants in July for alleged roles in Hong Kong Parliament, a pro-democracy group the police called a subversive organization abroad. The organization is not the region's official legislature and its influence is limited. Three of the original 19 activists were already targeted by similar measures last year. Secretary for Security Chris Tang banned providing funds or economic resources to the 16 activists, including Victor Ho, Keung Ka-wai, Australian academic Chongyi Feng and U.S. citizen Gong Sasha, the Hong Kong government said in a statement. Travel documents were cancelled for 12 of the 16 who hold Hong Kong passports. Hong Kong police issue fresh wave of arrest warrants for 19 overseas activists 7 days ago Police in Hong Kong have issued a fresh wave of arrest warrants for 19 activists overseas, including some in British Columbia. Ottawa is condemning the move, calling it a threat to Canadian safety and sovereignty. CBC's Michelle Ghoussoub reports. The government also prohibited properties from being leased to the people on the list or forming joint ventures with them. Anyone violating the orders risks a penalty of up to seven years in prison. The 16 activists are hiding in the U.K., the United States, Canada, Germany, Australia, Thailand and Taiwan, among other regions, the government said, accusing them of continuing to engage in activities endangering national security. The notice also accused them of intending to incite hatred against Beijing and Hong Kong through smear and slander. "We therefore have taken such measures to make a significant impact," the statement said. WATCH | 'We all live in fear,' democracy advocate says following Hong Kong arrest warrants: 'We all live in fear,' democracy advocate says following Hong Kong arrest warrants | Canada Tonight 7 months ago Hong Kong police on Tuesday announced arrest warrants for six overseas activists, including two Canadian citizens, and offered bounties of $185,000 for information leading to their arrests. Cheuk Kwan with the Toronto Association for Democracy in China discusses how his community is being impacted and how Canada should respond. Beijing imposed a national security law on the territory in 2020 that has effectively wiped out most public dissent following huge anti-government protests in 2019. Many activists were arrested, silenced or forced into self-exile. The measures announced on Monday were issued under the powers granted by Hong Kong's homegrown national security law enacted last year. The arrest warrants issued in July have drawn criticism from foreign governments, including the U.S., the U.K. and the European Union. Police offered rewards ranging from 200,000 Hong Kong dollars ($35,114 Cdn) to one million Hong Kong dollars ($175,574 Cdn) for information leading to their arrests. WATCH | Hong Kong law cracking down on dissent comes into effect: Hong Kong law cracking down on dissent comes into effect 1 year ago Article 23, a controversial national security law in Hong Kong, has come into effect. Many fear the crackdown on dissent will further erode civil liberties. In a July statement, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio condemned the moves. "The extraterritorial targeting of Hong Kongers who are exercising their fundamental freedoms is a form of transnational repression," he said. "We will not tolerate the Hong Kong government's attempts to apply its national security laws to silence or intimidate Americans or anyone on U.S. soil." The Hong Kong office of the Chinese Foreign Affairs Ministry responded by opposing criticism from foreign politicians, insisting the actions were legitimate.
CBC
10 hours ago
- CBC
Food airdropped into Gaza from flights out of Jordan
Seven planes dropped humanitarian aid from Jordan into Gaza on Monday. CBC's senior correspondent, Susan Ormiston, reports from aboard a Jordanian military aircraft.
