'We are neighbours': fleeing Thais and Cambodians call for peace
The death toll from three days of fighting has risen to 33, the majority civilians, after a long-running border dispute sharply escalated into combat waged with jets, artillery, tanks and ground troops.
"Relations used to be good -– we were like siblings," said 56-year-old Sai Boonrod, one of hundreds of Thais sheltering at a temple in the town of Kanthararom after evacuating her border village home.
"But now things may have changed," she told AFP. "I just want the fighting to end so we can go back to being like siblings again."
Over the Cambodian border, 150 kilometres from Sai's temporary home, a similar scene plays out: hundreds of evacuees huddled in makeshift tents on a temple site, surrounded by emergency food rations and their hastily packed clothes.
"We are neighbours, we want to be friends," one 50-year-old told AFP, speaking on condition of anonymity at the temple shelter in Phumi Bak Thkav.
"But they are attacking us. We are fleeing homes because of them."
Tensions have long flared over the countries' shared 800-kilometre border, peppered with ancient temple sites claimed by both nations.
AFP | TANG CHHIN Sothy
The previous most deadly clashes broke out between 2008 and 2011 -- leaving at least 28 people dead.
But stretching her legs on a bamboo mat, Sai said "it was never this violent" in previous times.
She is one of more than 170,000 evacuated from the countries' border zones, but her husband stayed behind to help guard neighbours' livestock and belongings.
"I want them to negotiate, to stop firing quickly... so the elderly can return home and the children can go back to school," she said.
The UN Security Council held an urgent meeting on Friday and both sides have said they are open to a truce -- but accused the other of undermining armistice efforts.
- 'End the fighting' -
This flare-up began with a gun battle in late May killing one Cambodian soldier, and festered with tit-for-tat trade restrictions and border closures before hostilities spiked on Thursday.
At 73 years old, Suwan Promsri has lived through many episodes of border friction -- but said this one feels "so much different".
He said resentment of Cambodians among Thais -- including himself -- is growing, with patriotic online discourse fanning the flames.
In February, Bangkok formally protested to Phnom Penh after a video of women singing a patriotic Khmer song in front of a disputed temple was posted on social media.
The fighting has also been accompanied by a wave of online misinformation and disinformation from both sides.
"Before the internet, I felt indifferent," said Suwan. "But social media really plays a part in fuelling this hatred."
Despite the divisions, he is united with his Thai neighbours, and those over the border in Cambodia, in his calls for peace.
"I want the government to realise that people along the border are suffering. Life is difficult," he said.
"I hope the authorities work on negotiations to end the fighting as soon as possible."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
eNCA
an hour ago
- eNCA
Peace offering? Donald Trump's Nobel obsession
WASHINGTON - A craving for international prestige, a decade-long Obama rivalry and perhaps a dash of provocation: a mercurial melange of factors is at play in Donald Trump's obsession with the Nobel Peace Prize. "It's well past time that President Trump was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize," White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on July 31, prompting reactions of disbelief and sarcasm from the Republican leader's opponents. Since his January 20 return to power, the US president "has brokered, on average, one peace deal or ceasefire per month," Leavitt said, citing as examples his mediations between India and Pakistan; Cambodia and Thailand; Egypt and Ethiopia; Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC); Serbia and Kosovo; and others. His leading spokeswoman also mentioned Iran, where Trump ordered US strikes against the Islamic republic's nuclear facilities, as evidence of decisions Leavitt claims have contributed to world peace. She made no mention of the conflict in Ukraine, which Trump pledged multiple times to end on "day one" of his term, or the war in Gaza, which rumbles on and for which the US supplies Israel with weapons. Pakistan, Israel For some foreign leaders, mentioning the prestigious award has become a sign of diplomatic goodwill toward an American president who envisions himself as a peacemaker. Pakistan nominated Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize, as did Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. During an early July meeting at the White House, a journalist asked the presidents of Liberia, Senegal, Mauritania, Guinea-Bissau, and Gabon whether Trump deserved the award. Basking in the flattering responses from the African leaders, a smiling Trump said: "We could do this all day long." Tens of thousands of people can offer a nomination to the Nobel committee, including lawmakers, ministers, certain university professors, former laureates and members of the committee themselves. Nominations are due by January 31, with the announcement coming in October -- this year on the 10th of the month. Law professor Anat Alon-Beck, who is an Israeli-American, submitted Trump's name to the committee's five members, who were appointed by the Norwegian Parliament. The assistant professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law told AFP she did so because of the "extraordinary leadership" and "strategic brilliance" he has shown, in her opinion, in advancing peace and securing the release of hostages held in the Gaza Strip. 'Never' getting the Nobel For some, the prospect of handing the prize to someone who has upended the international order is untenable. "Nominating Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize is like entering a hyena in a dog show," US history and politics researcher Emma Shortis wrote on news site The Conversation. "Of course Trump does not deserve it." The American president disagrees. "I deserve it, but they will never give it to me," Trump told reporters in February as he hosted Netanyahu at the White House, lamenting not ticking the Nobel box in his life. "No, I won't get a Nobel Peace Prize no matter what I do, including Russia/Ukraine, and Israel/Iran, whatever those outcomes may be," Trump griped on his Truth Social platform in June. "But the people know, and that's all that matters to me!" Trump is well-known as someone who is particularly fond of accolades and prizes, Garret Martin, a professor of international relations at American University, told AFP, "so he would welcome this major international recognition." And since the beginning of his presidential ambitions 10 years ago, "he has put himself in opposition to Barack Obama, who famously won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009," Martin added. The prize awarded to the Democratic former president, barely nine months after he took office, sparked heated debate -- and continues to do so. "If I were named Obama I would have had the Nobel Prize given to me in 10 seconds," Trump bellyached in October 2024, during the final stretch of the presidential campaign. 338 candidates Three other US presidents have also been so honored: Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Jimmy Carter. The prize was also awarded to Henry Kissinger in 1973 for his efforts to help end the war in Vietnam. The choice of the one-time US secretary of state was heavily criticized. The full list of Nobel Peace Prize nominees is confidential -- except for individual announcements by sponsors -- but their number is made public. In 2025, there are 338 nominees. Some betting sites have Trump in second place to win, behind Yulia Navalnaya, the widow of Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny. By Aurélia End
eNCA
3 hours ago
- eNCA
Filmmakers try to cash in on India-Pakistan battle
NEW DELHI - Indian filmmakers are locking up the rights to movie titles that can profit from the patriotism fanned by a four-day conflict with Pakistan, which killed more than 70 people. The nuclear-armed rivals exchanged artillery, drone and air strikes in May, after India blamed Pakistan for an armed attack on tourists in Indian-administered Kashmir. The fighting came to an end when US President Donald Trump announced a surprise ceasefire. Now, some Bollywood filmmakers see an opportunity to cash in on the battle. India tagged its military action against Pakistan "Operation Sindoor", the Hindi word for vermilion, which married Hindu women wear on their foreheads. The name was seen as a symbol of Delhi's determination to avenge those widowed in the April 22 attack in Kashmir's Pahalgam, which sparked the hostilities. Film studios have registered a slew of titles evoking the operation, including: "Mission Sindoor", "Sindoor: The Revenge", "The Pahalgam Terror", and "Sindoor Operation". "It's a story which needs to be told," said director Vivek Agnihotri. "If it was Hollywood, they would have made 10 films on this subject. People want to know what happened behind the scenes," he told AFP. Agnihotri struck box office success with his 2022 release, "The Kashmir Files", based on the mass flight of Hindus from Kashmir in the 1990s. Coloured narratives The ruling right-wing Bharatiya Janata Party gave that film a glowing endorsement, despite accusations that it aimed to stir up hatred against India's minority Muslims. Since Hindu nationalist Prime Minister Narendra Modi took office in 2014, some critics say Bollywood is increasingly promoting his government's ideology. Raja Sen, a film critic and screenwriter, said filmmakers felt emboldened by an amenable government. "We tried to wage a war and then we quietened down when Mr Trump asked us to. So what is the valour here?" Sen told AFP of the Pakistan clashes. AFP | Shammi MEHRA Anil Sharma, known for directing rabble-rousing movies, criticised the apparent rush to make films related to the Pahalgam attack. "This is herd mentality... these are seasonal filmmakers, they have their constraints," he said. "I don't wait for an incident to happen and then make a film based on that. A subject should evoke feelings and only then cinema happens," said Sharma. Sharma's historical action flick "Gadar: Ek Prem Katha" (2001) and its sequel "Gadar 2" (2023), both featuring Sunny Deol in lead roles, were big hits. In Bollywood, filmmakers often seek to time releases for national holidays like Independence Day, which are associated with heightened patriotic fervour. "Fighter", featuring big stars Hrithik Roshan and Deepika Padukone, was released on the eve of India's Republic Day on January 25 last year. Anti-Muslim bias Though not a factual retelling, it drew heavily from India's 2019 airstrike on Pakistan's Balakot. The film received mixed-to-positive reviews but raked in $28 million in India, making it the fourth highest-grossing Hindi film of that year. This year, "Chhaava", a drama based on the life of Sambhaji Maharaj, a ruler of the Maratha Empire, became the highest-grossing film so far this year. It also generated significant criticism for fuelling anti-Muslim bias. "This is at a time when cinema is aggressively painting Muslim kings and leaders in violent light," said Sen. AFP | TAUSEEF MUSTAFA "This is where those who are telling the stories need to be responsible about which stories they choose to tell." Sen said filmmakers were reluctant to choose topics that are "against the establishment". "If the public is flooded with dozens of films that are all trying to serve an agenda, without the other side allowed to make itself heard, then that propaganda and misinformation enters the public psyche," he said. Acclaimed director Rakeysh Omprakash Mehra said true patriotism is promoting peace and harmony through the medium of cinema. Mehra's socio-political drama "Rang De Basanti" (2006) won the National Film Award for Best Popular Film and was chosen as India's official entry for the Golden Globe Awards and the Academy Awards in the Best Foreign Language Film category. "How we can arrive at peace and build a better society? How we can learn to love our neighbours?" he asked. "For me that is patriotism."
IOL News
4 hours ago
- IOL News
'Propaganda masquerading as strategic realism'
Palestinian children clamour for a meal at a charity kitchen in the Mawasi area of Khan Yunis in the southern Gaza Strip. Image: AFP Ziyad Motala There is a certain predictability in the Sunday Times' editorial arc of late, an increasingly tired soliloquy in praise of empire, veiled in the language of pragmatism and national interest. But even by its declining standards, the paper's recent conduct reveals something altogether more disquieting: an abdication of journalistic integrity in favour of ideological alignment with Zionist hasbara and Washington's punitive caprice. For months, the Sunday Times stonewalled a public inquiry, refusing to disclose that its columnist, S'thembiso Msomi, had taken a trip to Israel and written an article in April 2025, a reverent portrayal of Israeli resilience masquerading as impartial analysis, which was funded by the South African Jewish Board of Deputies. This silence was not inadvertent. It was calculated. Only this past Sunday, after a formal complaint was lodged with the Press Council, did the paper grudgingly acknowledge this inconvenient fact. The admission came in the form of a subdued notice buried deep within the paper, accompanied by the usual euphemisms of 'clarification' and 'apology.' One suspects the intent was plain: to bury the admission and hope the public would move on, none the wiser. This is no minor infraction. The Press Code is unambiguous: publications must disclose when a third party finances the cost of news gathering. Failure to do so compromises not only the perceived neutrality of the journalist but the editorial independence of the publication itself. The Sunday Times, one of South Africa's prominent newspapers, violated this basic tenet of ethical journalism and only confessed months later when cornered. But Msomi's subsidised propaganda piece is merely the tip of a much larger ideological iceberg. For some time now, the Sunday Times has become a dependable sanctuary for pro-Israel apologetics and the exculpation of American imperial tantrums. William Gumede's April 27 supplication for normalisation with Israel was not just intellectually lazy; it was ideologically revealing. That his organisation, Democracy Works, has itself been the recipient of funding from several dubious foreign entities raises questions about whether we are reading South African analysis or something concocted in the backrooms of Tel Aviv and Washington, D.C. Not to be outdone, David Bruce, in a piece on July 18, urged the ANC to 're-engage' with Israel, as though genocide were a minor irritant to be filed under diplomatic collateral. This week, Richard Gumede once again joined the chorus with a patronising lecture about South Africa's 'anti-American' posture, couched, of course, in the language of concern for ordinary South Africans. He argues that the ANC's refusal to grovel before Donald Trump's grotesque 'America first' foreign policy is somehow an affront to rational diplomacy. It is a line of reasoning so bankrupt, so wilfully ahistorical, that one wonders whether Gumede has mistaken State Department press releases for political philosophy. To Gumede, the refusal to embrace the punitive actions taken by the United States against its adversaries, China, Russia, and Iran, is symptomatic of ideological recklessness. That these are states with whom South Africa has longstanding economic and strategic ties is brushed aside. That they are themselves frequent targets of American hostility for daring to act independently of Washington's diktats is of no concern. And that Donald Trump's America is perhaps the least principled, most corrupt and least coherent United States government in recent memory is something Gumede conveniently omits. Let us be clear. No state, regardless of its alliances or ideological pretensions, should enjoy impunity for violating international law or trampling on human rights. Those who commit war crimes or persecute their people must be held accountable without exception. Yet to invoke China, Russia or Iran as stock villains to deflect from the horrors in Gaza is not only evasive, it is intellectually bankrupt. Any person possessed of even modest moral clarity can see what is unfolding there: a sustained campaign of collective punishment, bolstered by the silence and acquiescence of the self-styled democratic West. Only a fool believes the United States has a principled interest in human rights. The historical record is unambiguous. So long as the foreign despot salutes the American flag and pledges fealty to Washington, tyranny becomes tolerable, and repression conveniently overlooked. It is particularly rich that Gumede offers up corruption as one of the United States' primary concerns with South Africa. One must ask: Is this the same United States whose president auctioned off foreign policy to the highest bidder, made his inaugural visits to the gilded palaces of Riyadh and Abu Dhabi, and returned with real estate contracts for his family? Is this the America whose transactional foreign policy includes deals with murderers and autocrats in exchange for arms deals and hotel licences? If so, Gumede's invocation of corruption is not just misguided. It is obscene. Equally revealing as what the Sunday Times chooses to publish is what it deliberately leaves out. While major newspapers across the globe devoted front pages this Sunday to the deepening famine in Gaza, where Israel stands credibly accused of weaponising starvation against a besieged population, the Sunday Times offered not a single article on the subject. Instead, readers were served yet another polemic lamenting South Africa's supposed diplomatic 'missteps' for refusing to placate the unplacatable. At the very moment when two respected Israeli human rights organisations, B'Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights Israel, joined the growing international consensus that Israel is committing genocide, the Sunday Times chose to publish yet another piece dismissing South Africa's ICJ application as nothing more than political 'lawfare.' This posture is part of a broader pattern of editorial capture. In an earlier column by Rowan Polovin on May 18, the Sunday Times provided a platform for the chair of the South African Zionist Federation to distort history, sanitise Israeli apartheid, and peddle neocolonial binaries between the "West" and global irrelevance. Polovin's article was not journalism. It was propaganda masquerading as strategic realism, replete with the ugliest strands of ethnic chauvinism and settler-colonial nostalgia. This is not journalism. It is ideological mimicry. The Sunday Times' descent into apologetics for Zionist repression and American belligerence reflects a broader pattern among certain elite opinion-shapers in South Africa. They dress up subservience and Israeli apartheid as realism, and fealty to empire as prudence. But the effect is the same: the slow domestication of South African political discourse in service of foreign powers whose only consistent principle is the ruthless preservation of their interests. In an age when facts are politicised and justice is routinely subverted, affectations of neutrality serve only to mask complicity. The Sunday Times has not simply abdicated its duty to inform. It has aligned itself with the architects of obfuscation, giving comfort to power, to oppression, and Israeli apartheid, something unimaginable in a democratic South Africa bending to the whims of Donald Trump. * Ziyad Motala, Professor of Law, Howard Law School ** The views expressed in this article are necessarily those of The African, IOL or Independent Media.
