Temple, Territory, Tensions: Why Thailand, Cambodia Are Trading Blows Again, Should India Worry?
Thailand on Thursday deployed F‑16 jets against Cambodian military targets in a dramatic escalation of a long‑standing border dispute. This followed a landmine blast on July 23 in which a Thai soldier lost a leg. Thailand retaliated by recalling its ambassador, severing diplomatic ties, closing border checkpoints, and launching airstrikes.
Cambodia, lacking air assets, responded with rocket launchers and pledged a 'decisive" counter‑response. Fierce artillery exchanges, landmine threats, and civilian displacement have roused fears of broader conflict.
What's At The Heart Of The Conflict?
The Thailand-Cambodia border dispute centres on a 4.6-square-kilometer area around the 11th-century Preah Vihear Temple, perched on a cliff in the Dangrek Mountains. This Hindu temple, built during the Khmer Empire, holds cultural significance for both nations, symbolising their shared heritage.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) awarded the temple to Cambodia in 1962, but the surrounding land remains contested, with both countries claiming sovereignty.
Clashes in 2011 killed 22 people, and the ICJ's 2013 ruling affirming Cambodia's control over the temple failed to resolve disputes over nearby areas like the Emerald Triangle, where Thailand, Cambodia, and Laos meet.
What Happened In The Recent Escalation?
The latest flare-up began in May, when a Cambodian soldier died in a clash near the Emerald Triangle, followed by a Thai soldier's injury from a landmine on July 23. Five Thai soldiers were wounded, prompting Thailand to recall its ambassador from Phnom Penh and expel Cambodia's, closing parts of its northeastern border.
On July 24, Thai F-16 jets struck two Cambodian military units, with Thailand's 2nd Regional Military Command claiming they 'destroyed" targets, per a Facebook post. Cambodia, lacking a combat-capable air force, vowed to 'respond decisively," with its BM-21 rocket launchers seen near Preah Vihear, per CNN.
Clashes injured three Thai civilians, prompting evacuations in Surin province's Kap Choeng district. Cambodia's Defense Ministry claimed its troops acted in self-defence against an 'unprovoked" Thai incursion, per Lieutenant General Maly Socheata.
How Did It Become A Political Firestorm?
A leaked 17-minute phone call on June 19 between Thailand's Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra and Cambodia's former leader Hun Sen intensified the crisis. Paetongtarn, 38, appeared to criticise her military, saying, 'If Hun Sen wants anything, he can just tell me, and I will take care of it," per CNN. The audio, confirmed authentic, led to accusations of 'kowtowing" to Cambodia, sparking protests in Bangkok.
The Bhumjaithai party withdrew from Paetongtarn's coalition, threatening her Pheu Thai party's grip on power. Thitinan Pongsudhirak, a Chulalongkorn University professor, called her comments a betrayal of Thai interests. Paetongtarn's suspension and potential dismissal highlight Thailand's political volatility, with 10 prime ministers in 20 years, per The Hindu.
Why The Conflict Between The Two Persists
Several factors fuel the ongoing dispute:
Historical Grievances: The 1907 Franco-Siamese treaty, which drew the border during French colonial rule, left ambiguities exploited by both nations. Thailand's claim to Preah Vihear stems from a 1904 map, while Cambodia relies on the ICJ's 1962 ruling. Nationalist sentiments, with 70% of Thais opposing the UNESCO listing, per a 2023 Bangkok Post poll, keep tensions alive.
Political Instability: Thailand's turbulent politics, marked by coups and protests, amplifies nationalist rhetoric. Paetongtarn's leaked call mirrors India's own political scandals, like Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS)'s assault on a shopkeeper over a WhatsApp post, where public outrage fuels division. Cambodia's Hun Sen, wielding influence despite stepping down, stokes tensions to rally domestic support, per The Guardian.
Military Disparity: Thailand's air force, with 11 Swedish Gripen jets and dozens of US-made F-16s, outmatches Cambodia's limited capabilities, per the International Institute for Strategic Studies' Military Balance 2025. This imbalance emboldens Thai airstrikes but risks escalation, as Cambodia's rocket launchers signal defiance.
Economic Stakes: The border region, part of the Emerald Triangle, hosts trade routes and tourism, with Thailand's Aranyaprathet-Poipet checkpoint seeing $2 billion in annual trade, per a 2024 ASEAN report. Closures disrupt local economies, impacting 50,000 border residents, per The Nation.
What Are The Implications For India & The Region?
For India, with its $44 billion space economy and ASEAN trade ties, the Thailand-Cambodia clash is a cautionary tale. India's border disputes with China, costing $10 billion annually in military spending, per a 2024 NITI Aayog report, mirror the economic toll of such conflicts. The crisis threatens ASEAN unity, critical for India's $130 billion trade with the region, per MEA 2024.
The clash also risks refugee flows, with 10,000 Cambodians displaced in 2011, per UNHCR, impacting India's regional security.
The Thailand-Cambodia stand-off is not a mere border dispute. It is a flashpoint with the capacity to draw in wider regional interests.
If unresolved, it risks destabilising ASEAN's unity and threatening India's broader ties in a region of growing geo-economic importance. The path ahead demands diplomacy, economic partnerships, and principled peace—lest this bruise on regional harmony turns into a deeper wound.
About the Author
Shilpy Bisht
Shilpy Bisht, Deputy News Editor at News18, writes and edits national, world and business stories. She started off as a print journalist, and then transitioned to online, in her 12 years of experience. Her prev...Read More
Get Latest Updates on Movies, Breaking News On India, World, Live Cricket Scores, And Stock Market Updates. Also Download the News18 App to stay updated!
tags :
ASEAN countries Cambodia thailand
view comments
Location :
New Delhi, India, India
First Published:
July 24, 2025, 13:13 IST
News explainers Temple, Territory, Tensions: Why Thailand, Cambodia Are Trading Blows Again, Should India Worry?
Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
21 minutes ago
- Time of India
'ATS pressurized, evidence erased': Acquitted accused in Malegaon blast case; names Sharad Pawar, Digvijay Singh
NEW DELHI: Sameer Kulkarni, one of the seven individuals cleared of charges in the Malegaon blast has accused senior Congress leaders and the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) of orchestrating a conspiracy to malign the Hindu community and manipulate evidence. Speaking to ANI, Kulkarni alleged that the entire case was built for political gain during the 2009 state elections, calling it an act of "Muslim appeasement" by the then Congress government. "We immediately expressed gratitude to the court. We fought this legal battle for the self-respect of the majority Hindu community," Kulkarni said. He blamed senior Congress leaders including Sharad Pawar, Digvijay Singh, Sushilkumar Shinde, Shivraj Patil, P Chidambaram, Jayant Patil, Rahul Gandhi, Sonia Gandhi, Shakeel Ahmed, and Ahmed Patel for the case. 'If the Hindu community had not realised its duty and changed the government in 2014, we could not have come out alive,' he said, urging Hindus to "never vote for Congress so that no innocent is trapped again. " Kulkarni further alleged that investigating officers were pressured and evidence was tampered with. 'Even the ATS and other officers were pressurised and evidence were erased or manipulated. There were a lot of ATS officers who didn't know their statements were falsely recorded by their seniors,' he said. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like She Was Everyone's Dream Girl In 90's, This Is Her Recently. Investructor Undo He claimed the motive behind implicating them was their opposition to Congress' actions. 'This was a conspiracy to defame Hindu community globally and mislead the minorities. .. the Congress leadership has been supporting the Pakistani ISI and if we want to save our future generations, Congress should completely be erased,' he added. Retired police inspector Mehiboob Mujawar, who was with the ATS during the initial investigation, echoed concerns about the legitimacy of the probe. Speaking to ANI, Mujawar claimed that he had been ordered to arrest RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat to bolster a 'Bhagwa terror' narrative. 'I did not follow the orders as they were horrific. As I did not obey, a false case was registered against me which destroyed my 40-year career,' Mujawar said. He asserted, 'There was no saffron terrorism. Everything was fake.' On September 29, 2008, six people were killed and over 100 injured when a bomb strapped to a motorbike exploded near a mosque in Malegaon during Ramzan and on the eve of Navratri. With all seven accused now acquitted, the case has turned into a flashpoint over the politicisation of terror probes and the reliability of past investigations.
News18
36 minutes ago
- News18
‘Ambitious Deadline For Pentagon" Trump Wants A "Win" For 2028 Election With ‘Golden Dome' Test
The Pentagon has reportedly scheduled its first major test of Golden Dome missile defence system for just before the 2028 US presidential election. The move thus sets an aggressive deadline for military officials to prove they can turn President Trump's vision into a reality. At the time of the unveiling the project, Trump had set a timeline of three years for the multibillion-dollar missile shield to become fully said that while missile tests are typically scheduled well in advance, the timing of the 'Golden Dome' test raises eyebrows. 'They want a win to point to in November [2028],' an unnamed US official told CNN, adding that the Pentagon 'wants to avoid anything they perceive will slow them down.' n18oc_world n18oc_crux0:00 INTRODUCTION'2:00 AMBITIOUS TIMELINE'
Hindustan Times
36 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Tariffs as a tool to extort, and slight India's sovereignty
US President Donald Trump, in an executive order dated July 31, announced imposing an additional 25% tariff on all Indian imports, on grounds of national emergency and lack of reciprocity. Trump has also said that he would impose an undetermined 'penalty' on India for buying oil and weapons from Russia. This latest measure is further evidence of the complete derision with which the Trump administration deals with its partners and with international law. Insulting a partner's economy by calling it 'dead', as Trump has done with India, undermines the cardinal principles of mutual respect and sovereign equality that are fundamental to international relations. The American penalty threat to India also violates general international laws of non-intervention in a country's sovereign affairs, as laid down by the ICJ. (HT Photo) It is worth noting that India and the US have been negotiating a bilateral trade agreement since March 2025. Despite the ongoing negotiations, the Trump administration announced reciprocal tariffs on India in April, which were then put on hold, subject to the sides quickly agreeing to an interim trade deal. The two sides have not reached an agreement on an interim trade deal because, reportedly, India is unwilling to open its agricultural and dairy markets. This stance is understandable, as it aims to protect India's politically-sensitive farming sector. The US announcement of a 25% tariff is a blatant attempt to pressure India into agreeing to a trade deal. As per the executive order, this additional tariff will remain until the two sides agree to a trade deal. The US is trying to negotiate while holding a gun to India's head. These tariffs would hit Indian exports to the US, especially of labour-intensive sectors such as textiles. Additionally, the US imposing an additional 25% tariff on all Indian goods is a blatant violation of international law. It not only breaches the most favoured nation principle laid down in Article I of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) but also violates the US's bound tariff commitments — a promise not to impose tariffs that exceed the rates mutually agreed upon — under Article II of GATT. The current situation extends beyond merely imposing high tariff rates. Trump's assertion that India would incur a penalty for purchasing oil and weapons from Russia constitutes a frontal assault on India's sovereignty. It's unclear whether this penalty refers to additional tariffs or something different. Regardless, the threat of such a penalty violates several fundamental canons of international law. Let us examine this under the law of the World Trade Organization (WTO), of which both India and the US are founding members. Under the WTO law, a member country is not allowed to adopt unilateral trade measures against another member country unless supported by the WTO agreement. A key provision in this regard is that a WTO member country can limit or even forbid trade with another member country on grounds of national security. This principle is codified in Article XXI of GATT, which, inter alia, allows a country to take any actions it deems necessary for protecting its essential security interests during times of war or other emergencies in international relations. This includes measures such as imposing a trade embargo. The WTO panels have interpreted this principle narrowly. The Russian invasion of Ukraine represents an emergency in international relations. This situation could potentially empower the US to sever its trade ties with Russia. However, the US cannot legally justify restricting trade with countries that engage in commerce with Russia. Imposing additional tariffs on India would be too disconnected from the security threats posed by Russia's aggression in Ukraine to the US, making such an action implausible. The American penalty threat to India also violates the general international law of non-intervention in a country's sovereign affairs, as laid down by the International Court of Justice in the US v Nicaragua case. From whom to buy oil and weapons is part of India's reserved domain, that is, part of India's sovereign economic and foreign policy. While the US may disapprove of India's policy choices and may seek to influence them through legal measures, it cannot impose unlawful actions — such as tariffs that are WTO-inconsistent — to coerce India into signing a trade deal or to punish it for lawfully trading with Russia. This, as international lawyer Marko Milanovic describes it, can be characterised as coercion-as-extortion, which violates customary international law. However, viewing the latest actions of Trump merely from the vantage point of international trade would mean missing the woods for the trees. The US, under Trump, appears determined to wage a war with international law and the liberal international order it assiduously built after World War II. The US has traditionally maintained a policy of exceptionalism regarding international law, viewing itself as 'distinct' and thus an 'exception' to the rules that apply to other countries. However, the Trump administration has escalated this attitude to a whole new level. American professor Mark Pollack has rightly described Trump as a 'hostile change agent' in international law who adopts unilateral measures that undermine the international rule of law and topple the law-based order. This is different from many past American presidents who might be characterised as 'traditional change agents' trying to persuade others to accept change based on reinterpretation of existing norms or even adoption of new ones. The real worry is that the current hostility to international law might get so entrenched that it would be difficult to reverse it even after Trump leaves office. Keeping this larger picture in mind, India should stand up against American bullying. While the US is undoubtedly a significant partner for India, New Delhi should send a clear message that it cannot be taken for granted. One effective way to convey this message would be to legally challenge the US's illegal tariffs at the WTO's dispute settlement body. A just and fair rule-based international order is the best antidote to Trumpian unilateralism. India, an essential member of the comity of nations, should take a lead in industriously defending the international rule of law. Prabhash Ranjan is professor and vice-dean (research), Jindal Global Law School. The views expressed are personal.
