The Irish Times view on Thai-Cambodian conflict: tensions have not gone away
The five-day-war, in which a ceasefire was declared on Monday, appears in reality to have sprung from a personal falling out between two of the region's erstwhile strongmen leaders, along with internal military/civilian tensions in Bangkok, and apparent Chinese willingness to see regional frailties tested. At least 38 are reported to have died in the conflict, while up to 300,000 have fled as refugees,
Thailand, a US ally, hosts dozens of military exercises with American forces; China is the largest trading partner of both Thailand and Cambodia, which hosts a naval base largely funded by Beijing.
In the end, an 'immediate, unconditional' ceasefire was brokered by Malaysia, with the assistance of US president Donald Trump's threats of trade consequences for both sides if they did not co-operate. There was also a nudge from China. The ceasefire may hold, but has done nothing to heal the instability that triggered the conflict.
READ MORE
In the background are two former prime ministers, Cambodia's longtime autocratic leader Hun Sen, and Thailand's populist Thaksin Shinawatra. They were once bosom buddies. Hun Sen, now succeeded by his son, Hun Manet, has long supported Thaksin's family during a power struggle with Thailand's military. The latter were delighted weeks ago to see courts oust Thaksin's daughter, Paetongtarn Shinawatra, as prime minister over what was seen as a overly sycophantic leaked phone call to 'uncle' Hun.
With the Hun-Thaksin relationship disappearing, nationalists in both militaries seized an opportunity to vent old grievances. Each side continues to accuse the other of initiating the attacks on contested temples. An uneasy peace is the best that can be hoped for.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Independent
a few seconds ago
- Irish Independent
Trump and pharma industry discuss boosting medicine spending abroad to cut US prices, sources say
LATEST: Trump's broad tariffs are now officially in effect President Donald Trump has begun levying higher import taxes on dozens of countries, just as the economic fallout of his months-long tariff threats has begun to create visible damage for the US economy. Just after midnight, goods from more than 60 countries and the European Union (EU) became subject to tariff rates of 10pc or higher. Products from the European Union, Japan and South Korea are taxed at 15pc, while imports from Taiwan, Vietnam and Bangladesh are taxed at 20pc. Mr Trump also expects the EU, Japan and South Korea to invest hundreds of billions of dollars in the US. 'I think the growth is going to be unprecedented,' Mr Trump said on Wednesday afternoon. He added that the US was 'taking in hundreds of billions of dollars in tariffs', but he could not provide a specific figure for revenues because 'we don't even know what the final number is' regarding tariff rates. Despite the uncertainty, the Trump White House is confident that the onset of his broad tariffs will provide clarity about the path of the world's largest economy. Now that companies understand the direction the US is headed, the administration believes it can ramp up new investments and jump-start hiring in ways that can rebalance the US economy as a manufacturing power. But so far, there are signs of self-inflicted wounds to America as companies and consumers alike brace for the impact of new taxes. What the data has shown is a US economy that changed in April with Mr Trump's initial rollout of tariffs, an event that led to market drama, a negotiating period and Mr Trump's ultimate decision to start his universal tariffs on Thursday. After April, economic reports show that hiring began to stall, inflationary pressures crept upward and home values in key markets started to decline, said John Silvia, chief executive of Dynamic Economic Strategy. 'A less productive economy requires fewer workers,' Mr Silvia said in an analysis note. 'But there is more, the higher tariff prices lower workers' real wages. The economy has become less productive, and firms cannot pay the same real wages as before. Actions have consequences.' Even then, the ultimate transformations of the tariffs are unknown and could play out over months, if not years. Many economists say the risk is that the American economy is steadily eroded rather than collapsing instantly. 'We all want it to be made for television where it's this explosion – it's not like that,' said Brad Jensen, a professor at Georgetown University. 'It's going to be fine sand in the gears and slow things down.' Mr Trump has promoted the tariffs as a way to reduce the persistent trade deficit. But importers sought to avoid the taxes by importing more goods before the taxes went into effect. As a result, the 582.7 billion dollar trade imbalance for the first half of the year was 38pc higher than in 2024. Total construction spending has dropped 2.9pc over the past year. The lead-up to Thursday fit the slapdash nature of Mr Trump's tariffs, which have been variously rolled out, walked back, delayed, increased, imposed by letter and frantically renegotiated. The process has been so muddled that officials for key trade partners were unclear at the start of the week whether the tariffs would begin on Thursday or Friday. The language of the July 31 order to delay the start of tariffs from August 1 said the higher tax rates would start in seven days. On Wednesday morning, Kevin Hassett, director of the White House National Economic Council, was asked if the new tariffs began at midnight on Thursday, and he said reporters should check with the US Trade Representative's Office. Mr Trump on Wednesday announced additional 25pc tariffs to be imposed on India for its buying of Russian oil, bringing its total import taxes to 50pc. A top body of Indian exporters said on Thursday that the latest US tariffs will impact nearly 55pc of the country's outbound shipments to America and force exporters to lose their long-standing clients. 'Absorbing this sudden cost escalation is simply not viable. Margins are already thin,' SC Ralhan, president of the Federation of Indian Export Organisations, said. Import taxes are still coming on pharmaceutical drugs and Mr Trump announced 100pc tariffs on computer chips. That could leave the US economy in a place of suspended animation as it awaits the impact. The president's use of a 1977 law to declare an economic emergency to impose the tariffs is also under challenge. The impending ruling from last week's hearing before a US appeals court could cause Mr Trump to find other legal justifications if judges say he exceeded his authority. Even people who worked with Mr Trump during his first term are sceptical that things will go smoothly for the economy, such as Paul Ryan, the former Republican House of Representatives speaker, who has emerged as a Trump critic. 'There's no sort of rationale for this other than the president wanting to raise tariffs based upon his whims, his opinions,' Mr Ryan told CNBC on Wednesday. 'I think choppy waters are ahead because I think they're going to have some legal challenges.' Still, the stock market has been solid during the recent tariff drama, with the S&P 500 index climbing more than 25pc from its April low. The market's rebound and the income tax cuts in Mr Trump's tax and spending measures signed into law on July 4 have given the White House confidence that economic growth is bound to accelerate in the coming months. As of now, Mr Trump still foresees an economic boom while the rest of the world and American voters wait nervously. 'There's one person who can afford to be cavalier about the uncertainty that he's creating, and that's Donald Trump,' said Rachel West, a senior fellow at The Century Foundation who worked in the Biden White House on labour policy.
Irish Examiner
an hour ago
- Irish Examiner
Donald Trump urges 'conflicted' Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan to resign immediately
President Donald Trump called on the chief executive officer of Intel to resign because of what he called conflicts of interest, adding to the challenges for a company that is supposed to anchor restoration of the US semiconductor industry. 'The CEO of INTEL is highly CONFLICTED and must resign, immediately,' Trump wrote on Truth Social on Thursday, without providing any details. 'There is no other solution to this problem. Thank you for your attention to this problem!' A spokesperson for Intel didn't immediately respond to a request for comment on Trump's post. Ties to China This week, Republican Senator Tom Cotton asked the chairman of Intel's board to answer questions about Chief Executive Officer Lip-Bu Tan's ties to China, including investments in the country's semiconductor companies and others with connections to the country's military. In a letter to Frank Yeary, who oversees the chipmaker's board of directors, Cotton asked about investments Tan made in China before he was picked to run Intel. Cotton noted specific concerns about Tan's ties to Cadence Design Systems Inc., a tech company he led for over a decade which sold products to a Chinese military university. The company pleaded guilty in July to violating US export controls by selling hardware and software to China's National University of Defense Technology. Tan is an industry veteran in technology and venture capital. During his 12 years as CEO of Cadence, which he joined in 2008 when the chip-design software company was struggling, the company's share price grew more than 3,000%. Tan, aged 65, took the reins at Intel in March, seeking to turn around the iconic chipmaker after it had lost ground to rivals in recent years. Intel Intel is a critical piece of Washington's efforts to rebuild the domestic semiconductor industry. The company had been awarded almost $8 billion from the Chips and Science Act for US investments, including a facility to supply the US military, although the Trump administration is making changes to the program. The Santa Clara, California-based company long led the semiconductor market by producing faster and faster chips to power personal computers and laptops, but it struggled as computing migrated to smartphones and artificial intelligence has grown in importance. Nvidia Corp. has pioneered AI chips development, while Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. has become the world's biggest semiconductor producer by manufacturing chips for companies like Nvidia and Apple Inc. Intel's market valuation was about $89 billion as of Wednesday's closing price compared with $4.4 trillion for Nvidia. Malaysian-born Tan has vowed to spin off Intel assets that aren't central to its mission and create more compelling products. He has pushed a plan to slash jobs and delayed or cancelled projects to reduce operating expenses. 'Intel and Mr. Tan are deeply committed to the national security of the United States and the integrity of our role in the US defense ecosystem,' the company said in a statement on Wednesday. Intel said it would address the matters in the letter with the senator. Bloomberg
RTÉ News
2 hours ago
- RTÉ News
How global politics are affecting your grocery bill
We live in a world where decisions are taken far from the checkouts of our local supermarkets which ultimately hit all of our pockets. Problems with a shipping route in the Red Sea or a White House decision in the US can influence what's on the shelves in Dublin or Donegal - and how much you pay for it. My ongoing research has explored how geopolitical factors from populist politics to protectionist tariffs are shaping the decisions that companies make about where and how they source goods. So, how are these seemingly far-off calls bumping up the price of your weekly shop? When 'buying local' actually means 'buying global' We've all heard the importance of shopping local, in supporting the economy and helping keep jobs in our areas. But one of the most consistent findings from my interviews was that public and political narratives, especially those shaped by nationalism or populism, often push companies to appear more local without making substantive changes to their supply chains. From RTÉ Brainstorm, international companies often package their product with specific language and imagery in an effort to connect with local consumers For instance, organisations may promote nearshoring (outsourcing to companies in a nearby country) or domestic manufacturing in public statements, but continue to rely on global suppliers in reality due to cost, quality or capacity constraints. As one participant put it, "nearshoring is lip service, you have to be seen to be supporting local manufacturing, but in reality, the supply chain hasn't moved". As an Irish consumer, you might be choosing products based on the assumption that "local" means homegrown or EU-sourced, but those labels may reflect marketing strategy rather than true sourcing or country of origin shifts. If your motivation is sustainability, ethical labour practices or support for the local economy, it's worth asking whether branding aligns with actual supply chain behaviour. Political pressure doesn't always lead to smart decisions Another theme that emerged in my research was the influence of political and media pressure on executive decision-making, especially during moments of crisis. Multiple interviewees highlighted that supply chain disruptions could trigger panic. In some companies, leadership demanded overnight shifts away from Chinese suppliers not based on operational risk assessment or financial evaluation rather as a reaction to headlines and public sentiment. From RTÉ Brainstorm, why are my bills going up (and up) mid-contract? This kind of knee jerk reaction is both inefficient and costly. Several participants noted that protectionist policies like tariffs haven't meaningfully reshaped supply chains. Instead, they've increased complexity and pushed higher costs, often to the detriment of consumers. Such reactionary decisions can cause large and unexpected increases in the amount you are paying on goods. The next time you notice a sudden price hike on everyday items such as electronics, sportswear or over-the-counter medicine, stop and consider the broader context. Rising prices can sometimes reflect not just material costs or inflation, but reactive supply decisions driven by perception not evidence. Could this price possibly come down again in the near future, when fears subside? Why supply chain decisions are not always rational Companies are under more pressure than ever to monitor geopolitical risk. Dedicated functions are being set up to monitor developments in trade policy, diplomatic tensions and regional instability. However, the redesign of supply chains is rarely straightforward. There is limited evidence of any mass reshoring of production, particularly in the Irish or European context. From RTÉ Radio 1's Today with Claire Byrne in Jan 2024, Nils Haupt from Hapag Lloyd on understanding the implications for the global supply chain from the Red Sea crisis Instead, what's happening is more tactical. Companies are adding buffers, dual-sourcing from new regions (like Southeast Asia instead of China) or increasing inventory. My research has identified that these strategies can be driven more by risk diversification than national loyalty or political ideology. These changes affect product availability and resilience, especially in times of global uncertainty. When there are shortages or delays (such as personal protective equipment during the Covid pandemic), it's helpful to understand that companies are trying to build more flexible, not necessarily more "local" systems. Certain goods can become scarce as a result, which not only leads to less of them being available, but also those that are can become more expensive as a result. The challenge of misinformation Several interviewees reflected on how politicised media coverage can complicate supply chain decision making. Rather than focusing on deliberate misinformation, participants pointed to the challenges posed by politically charged or agenda driven narratives that dominate both traditional and social media. From RTÉ Radio 1's Today with Claire Byrne in Sep 2024, Marco Forgione from the Institute of Export & International Trade on how a port strike in the US could affect the global supply chain These narratives can lead to misinterpretations of geopolitical risk within organisations, prompting disproportionate responses to events. One participant described the internal pressure this created during the Red Sea crisis, where his team were urged to respond based on fact and risk assessments, rather than trending media. As a small, open economy, Ireland is deeply integrated into global supply chains. Misconceptions about how these systems work can lead to misguided policy pressure, poor consumer choices or even loss of trust when companies can't meet unrealistic expectations. While a crisis can often lead to you paying more at the till, sometimes it can actually be a misunderstanding of a crisis by a business that hits your pocket, particularly in an economy such as Ireland's. Cost remains an important factor While public perception plays a role, most participants in my research were clear that cost is still critical to businesses and the customer. When it comes down to the final decision on where to source from, economic factors usually win out over ideology or narrative. Political reactions may be swift and presidential terms are limited, but supply chain responses are slow, cautious and deeply rooted in cost-benefit analysis. The bottom line is often what wins out in the final decision for companies. From RTÉ Radio 1's Drivetime, warnings that the days of cheap food are over As much as we may want to believe that politics or public opinion reshapes global trade, the reality is more cautious. Companies will weigh sentiment against spreadsheets. As a result, meaningful change whether towards more ethical sourcing, local production or reduced emissions requires long-term planning not short-term pressure. This is a large factor in keeping down the price that you eventually pay for your goods. At first glance, topics like trade policy, tariffs or global sourcing might feel distant from everyday Irish life. But as this research shows, they're not. What happens in far-off factories or foreign governments affects what's on our shelves, how much we pay and whether our supply of essentials is secure. It's worth remembering that price increases often lag behind the actual disruption. Transport costs rise, materials become scarce and those pressures build gradually until they hit your wallet. A geopolitical conflict or supply chain shock might happen months before you see it reflected in the prices paid at the supermarket checkout.
