Death Toll Rises In Thai-Cambodian Clashes Despite Ceasefire Call
A long-running border dispute erupted into intense conflict involving jets, artillery, tanks and ground troops on Thursday, prompting the UN Security Council to hold an emergency meeting on the crisis Friday.
Cambodia's defence ministry said 13 people were now confirmed killed in the fighting, including eight civilians and five soldiers, with 71 people wounded.
In Thailand, the army said five soldiers were killed on Friday, taking the toll there to 20 -- 14 civilians and six military.
The death toll across the two countries is now higher than the 28 killed in the last major round of fighting between 2008 and 2011.
Both sides reported a clash around 5:00 am (2200 Friday GMT), with Cambodia accusing Thai forces of firing "five heavy artillery shells" into locations in Pursat province, which borders Thailand's Trat province.
The fighting has forced more than 138,000 people to be evacuated from Thailand's border regions, with more than 35,000 driven from their homes in Cambodia.
After the closed meeting of the Security Council in New York, Cambodia's UN ambassador Chhea Keo said his country wanted a ceasefire.
"Cambodia asked for an immediate ceasefire -- unconditionally -- and we also call for the peaceful solution of the dispute," he told reporters.
Thai Foreign Ministry spokesman Nikorndej Balankura said Friday, before the UN meeting was held, that Bangkok was open to talks, possibly aided by Malaysia.
"We are ready, if Cambodia would like to settle this matter via diplomatic channels, bilaterally, or even through Malaysia, we are ready to do that. But so far we have not had any response," Nikorndej told AFP.
Malaysia currently holds the chair of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations regional bloc, of which Thailand and Cambodia are both members.
Acting Thai Prime Minister Phumtham Wechayachai has warned that if the situation escalates, "it could develop into war."
Both sides blamed each other for firing first, while Thailand accused Cambodia of targeting civilian infrastructure, including a hospital hit by shells and a petrol station hit by at least one rocket.
Cambodia has accused Thai forces of using cluster munitions.
At the UN, Cambodia's envoy questioned Thailand's assertion that his country, which is smaller and less militarily developed than its neighbour, had initiated the conflict.
"(The Security Council) called for both parties to (show) maximum restraint and resort to a diplomatic solution. That is what we are calling for as well," said Chhea Keo.
The fighting marks a dramatic escalation in a long-running dispute between the neighbours -- both popular destinations for millions of foreign tourists -- over their shared 800-kilometre (500-mile) border.
Dozens of kilometres in several areas are contested and fighting broke out between 2008 and 2011, leaving at least 28 people dead and tens of thousands displaced.
A UN court ruling in 2013 settled the matter for over a decade, but the current crisis erupted in May when a Cambodian soldier was killed in a new clash.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
DW
a day ago
- DW
German government takes tougher tone with Israel – DW – 08/02/2025
Germany's foreign minister visited Jerusalem on Friday and insisted that more aid be let into Gaza. Despite the tough talk, experts say it's unlikely there will be any consequences if Israel doesn't do as Germany asks. After his talks with Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu and representatives from the United Nations in Jerusalem, German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul tried to put more pressure on the Israeli government. On Friday he made an urgent appeal to the Israelis: The government should immediately allow the UN to help the hungry people in Gaza. "That is why we call on Israel to allow the UN to transport and distribute the aid safely," Wadephul said, while in Jerusalem. "This was also part of my discussion with the Israeli government yesterday. The humanitarian catastrophe in the Gaza Strip must be ended now, with the help of the efficient, established UN system." The day before Wadephul had described the situation in Gaza in dramatic tones. The death and suffering there was "unimaginable," he said. Wadephul also appealed to the militant group Hamas, asking them to stop fighting and to return all the hostages they still held. Hamas is classified as a terrorist organization by Germany, the US, Israel and other countries. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video Israel's foreign minister Gideon Saar didn't publicly express an opinion on Germany's suggestions. But Wadephul told reporters he thought Germany's message had been understood. Saar did reject accusations from his colleague in the Israeli government, the far-right extremist Itamar Ben-Gvir, Israel's minister of national security. On social media platform X, Ben-Gvir said that 80 years after the Holocaust, Germany was once again supporting Nazis. Before he left Germany, Wadephul had warned that Israel was becoming increasingly isolated internationally. He also said Berlin would respond to any unilateral actions by Israel and was critical of potential Israeli plans to annex the occupied West Bank. Israel's Saar answered Ben-Gvir on social media too. "I strongly reject Minister Ben-Gvir's statements about Germany. They are unnecessary and harmful. Germany is a friendly country and Foreign Minister Wadephul is a friend of Israel. This does not change, even when there are differences of opinion between us." Germany is still pushing for a two-state solution to the intractable problems in the Middle East. Wadephul confirmed the right of the Palestinians to their own state after he met with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas on Friday. However Netanyahu's government has rejected that idea in the recent past. Even as Germany criticizes the expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, Israel's foreign minister sees the settlements as justified. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz had sent Wadephul to Israel after a meeting of the country's so-called security cabinet. This group includes the ministers of foreign affairs, defense, interior and finance, as well as various intelligence services. Wadephul's mission was to make it clear that the humanitarian crisis in Gaza must be resolved and he was also to assess whether and how the Israeli government could be convinced to do this. Over this weekend, he is to report back to the Chancellor and the security cabinet. The results of this are hard to predict. Whether the German government would use sanctions against Israel, stop weapons deliveries or recognize a Palestinian state is unclear. However observers in Berlin says it's unlikely any concrete steps will be taken, because of Germany's special responsibility towards Israel, after committing the Holocaust. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video Criticism is likely but sanctions won't happen, says Martin Huber, the secretary general of the conservative, Bavaria-based Christian Social Union, or CSU. Even so, the tone German politicians are using is becoming sharper, as more and more pictures of starving children in Gaza emerge. The leader of the Social Democrats' parliamentary group, Dirk Wiese, told local journalists that the time for talk has passed. "We need political pressure and concrete progress," he said. The Social Democrats are part of Germany's governing coalition together with the CSU and the Christian Democratic Union, or CDU. Up until now the German government has been holding back, Andreas Reinicke, the director of the German Orient-Institute, told public radio Deutschlandfunk. But that's for good reasons, he argued, in reference to the Holocaust. However if the world now really wants a two-state solution, "then we will have to do this not only verbally, but also with an active process," Reinicke said. "I believe Germany's influence [on Israel] is greater than is commonly assumed." Meanwhile the Israeli government disputes that locals in Gaza are going hungry and insists that the siltation is actually better than depicted in the international press. Foreign Minister Saar accused media of showing misleading pictures of hungry children. "This is what a modern blood libel looks like," he wrote on social media platform X, referring to a-now-well-known picture of Osama al-Raqab, an emaciated 5-year-old. Al-Raqab has cystic fibrosis and was evacuated to Italy in June, Saar pointed out. The Israeli government's position on the issue is in opposition to what international aid agencies have observed and eyewitnesses have reported. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video Wadephul also said that the thesis often insisted upon by the Israeli government — that Hamas will benefit from any aid shipments they allow in — is no longer justified. It could well be that Hamas previously diverted some of the shipments, he said. "But the humanitarian catastrophe in the Gaza Strip is now so great that it is not justified to put up further hurdles here," Wadephul insisted. Another contentious point: While the German foreign minister and others argue that the UN and the World Food Program should be taking care of supplies into Gaza, Israel and its main ally, the US, insist the newly created and increasingly controversial Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, or GHF should be. On Friday, Steve Witkoff, the US special envoy to the Middle East, demonstratively visited a GHF aid distribution site near Rafah, in Gaza. The US ambassador in Israel, Mike Huckabee, claims the GHF has given out 100 million meals in two months. However the UN and other aid organizations say the GHF is not working properly. During past weeks, there have been reports of hundreds of people killed or wounded while trying to get aid from the GHF. On Friday, the German air force began to help, dropping palettes of aid into the Gaza Strip, flying out of Jordan. However even Germany's foreign minister considers this more a symbolic than anything particularly helpful. The crucial thing now is to send hundreds of trucks carrying food into the Gaza Strip daily, Wadephul said while in view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video
Int'l Business Times
a day ago
- Int'l Business Times
Dmitry Medvedev: Russia's Hawkish Ex-president
Former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev, whose comments prompted US President Donald Trump to move two nuclear submarines, was once seen as a liberal reformer but has become one of the Kremlin's most prominent anti-Western hawks. The 59-year-old, who served as head of state between 2008 and 2012, sought "friendly" ties with Europe and the United States during his single term but faded into obscurity after handing the post back to President Vladimir Putin. Demoted to prime minister in 2012 and then made deputy head of Russia's security council in 2020 -- a largely advisory role -- Medvedev began espousing hardline views on social media shortly after Moscow launched its Ukraine offensive. In public statements since the conflict began he has described Westerners as "bastards and degenerates", declared that "Ukraine is, of course, Russia" and raised the possibility of using nuclear weapons against Russia's enemies. In June, after the US launched air strikes on nuclear facilities in Moscow-allied Iran, Medvedev suggested that "a number of countries" were willing to provide Tehran with nuclear warheads, prompting an angry Trump to accuse him of "casually" threatening a nuclear strike. On Thursday, Medvedev alluded to Moscow's semi-automatic "Dead Hand" nuclear arms control system in a Telegram post criticising Trump. Medvedev's critics have derided his posts as an attempt to retain political relevance in Russia's crowded elite circles, but Trump has taken the threats seriously. "Based on the highly provocative statements," Trump said Friday, "I have ordered two nuclear submarines to be positioned in the appropriate regions, just in case these foolish and inflammatory statements are more than just that." Medvedev's often incendiary posts contrast sharply with his public image in office, when he declared Russia did not want confrontation with "any country" as part of his foreign policy doctrine. In 2010, he signed a nuclear arms reduction treaty with US President Barack Obama, while in 2011 he brought Russia into the World Trade Organisation after 18 years of negotiations. On his watch, Moscow also abstained in a key UN Security Council vote on Libya in 2011 that paved the way for a NATO-led military intervention, a decision Putin has relentlessly criticised since. But it was always clear who was the senior partner in a pairing dubbed Batman and Robin by a secret US cable. Medvedev's first act after winning a 2008 presidential election on the back of Putin's support was to appoint the Russian strongman as prime minister, giving Putin broad decision-making power. While some in the West greeted Medvedev's arrival, others saw him as simply a placeholder for Putin, who was able to circumvent constitutional term limits and remain in de facto power. In 2008 Russia sent troops into Georgia, fracturing relations with the West, a decision that Medvedev insisted he made but that a top general claimed was planned by Putin before Medvedev was even inaugurated. His trademark modernisation programme was marked by bold statements but was also mercilessly mocked by commentators for being short on actions as Putin held real power. Medvedev, born in Putin's home town of Leningrad, owes his entire political career to the former KGB agent. Putin took his protege to Moscow after being appointed prime minister in 1999 and Medvedev rapidly rose to become chairman of gas giant Gazprom. He also served as chief of staff at the Kremlin and as first deputy prime minister. After taking office, he said Russia's economy had reached a "dead end" and required urgent reform. But cynics pointed out that such words counted for little when Russia was still dominated by Putin, and Medvedev himself played down the idea there was any radical difference in their visions. After championing anti-corruption measures while in office, Medvedev was himself accused of graft in 2017, when late opposition leader Alexei Navalny alleged he had built a luxury property empire using embezzled funds. Navalny was labelled an "extremist" by Russian authorities in 2021. While liberals and the West hoped Medvedev would reverse the increase in state control and erosion of civil liberties during Putin's previous rule, he showed little desire for a radical break with Putin's legacy. "Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin really is modern Russia's most popular, experienced and successful politician," Medvedev said during an attempt to explain why he was standing down in favour of Putin in 2012. Medvedev's recent statements contrast sharply with his public image in office AFP Medvedev played down the idea there was any radical difference between him and Putin AFP
DW
2 days ago
- DW
Palestinian territories: What makes a state, a state? – DW – 08/01/2025
The question of Palestinian statehood continues to draw support, with more and more countries willing to recognize Palestine. But the pathway to statehood is built on conventions and custom — and is rarely allies of Israel are increasingly recognizing — or positioning themselves to acknowledge — the existence of Palestine as a state. The Palestinian territories are the focal point of the current conflict between Israel and Hamas. The moves by nations like France, Canada and potentially the United Kingdolm to recognize a Palestinian state, joining around 150 others, will not necessarily bring an end to the war or secure territorial borders. That, as with many other statehood disputes, is because recognized statehood is not a straightforward process. There are states of all shapes, sizes and structures; 193 are currently full members of the United Nations. But not having full UN membership does not preclude those states from participating in the functions of the organization, joining other international bodies and even having diplomatic missions. Nor is UN membership even required to be a state. One of the simplest guides for statehood is outlined in the Convention on Rights and Duties of States — the Montevideo Convention — signed in 1933. It lists four criteria for statehood: defined territorial boundaries, a permanent population, a government representing those people and the ability to enter into international agreements. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video It is sometimes said that a state exists when it's recognized by enough people outside its own territory. While recognition isn't a literal part of international conventions, Gezim Visoka, a peace and conflict studies scholar and statehood expert at Dublin City University, Ireland, said it effectively exists through other measures. "Recognition is crucial for a state to function, to exist internationally, to enter international agreements, to benefit from international treaties, protection from annexation, occupations and other forms of arbitrary intervention from abroad," said Visoka. "You're in a better place than if you're not recognized." Recognition of statehood or fulfilling the Montevideo criteria does not automatically lead to UN admission. The process of becoming a member requires a candidate state to follow several steps: a letter to the UN secretary-general, a formal declaration accepting the UN Charter's membership obligations and the support of the secretary-general. And then, the candidate state must gain the support of members of the UN Security Council. That includes nine of the 15 council members voting in favor of the candidate, and all five of the permanent members: China, France, Russia, the UK and US. Historically, this has been a difficult barrier for candidate states to pass, even for those that have a high level of recognition. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 videoPalestine, Kosovo and Western Sahara are among states with extensive recognition but that aren't full UN members. "When Montenegro joined the UN, or Croatia [joined], they had less than 70 recognitions," said Visoka. "Whereas Palestine has almost 150, Kosovo has around 180-190 recognitions, Western Sahara has over 50." However, if this barrier is passed, a candidate need only receive a two-thirds majority vote of all other UN members at the General Assembly. Outside of the 193 member states are two current permanent observers to the United Nations: the Holy See and Palestine. They are able to access the majority of UN meetings and documentation and maintain missions at UN headquarters. Not being a full member of the UN does not prevent non-members from participating in other bodies. Palestine is, for instance, listed as a state entitled to appear before the International Court of Justice. Some long-recognized states have resisted joining the UN. Switzerland, for example, spent 56 years as a permanent observer before finally joining as a full member in 2002. But the benefits of being in the UN are clear. It effectively acts as de facto recognition, providing sovereign integrity in the event of derecognition by one or more states, and a basis for equality irrespective of size and strength. "On the other hand, non-membership is really tricky," said Visoka, "You don't enjoy the same access to agencies and programs, you might be exposed to mistreatment, isolation and unequal trade and economic relations." So too the risk that territory could be lost. Visoka pointed to recent examples of Western Sahara and Nagorno-Karabakh. States can be recognized by others, but still can face challenges. Places like the Palestinian territories and Kosovo are widely recognized as states, but still face challenges. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video The fact that they haven't received approval to become full members of the UN "doesn't make [them] less of a state than other states," said Visoka. But state recognition is a flexible and fluid process. "Unfortunately, recognition remains the weakest part of international law, so there is no treaty, there is no regulation on who is a state, who has the right to recognize other states and which entities are candidates for recognition and statehood," said Visoka. "It is very much defined on a case-by-case basis. All the states don't have unified recognition policy, so they improvise, they adjust and change." This can lead to violence and conflicts, as states fight to gain recognition and legitimacy in the eyes of other nations, with recent examples including the conflict-borne emergence of Kosovo and South Sudan.
