Thailand and Cambodia reaffirm ceasefire after China-brokered meeting in Shanghai
The ceasefire reached in Malaysia was supposed to take effect at midnight on Monday, but was quickly tested. Thailand's army accused Cambodia of launching attacks in multiple areas early Tuesday, while Cambodia said there was no firing in any location. The Thai army then reported exchanges of gunfire into Wednesday morning but said there was no use of heavy artillery.
'Such act of aggression constitutes once again a clear violation of the ceasefire agreement by Cambodian forces and their apparent lack of good faith,' said Thailand's Foreign Ministry in a statement Wednesday morning.
By Wednesday afternoon, however, both sides appeared to have reaffirmed their commitment to a ceasefire, with representatives appearing smiling in a photo with a Chinese vice minister Sun Weidong at a meeting in Shanghai.
China's 'constructive role'
The meeting involved Kung Phaok, a senior official at Cambodia's Foreign Affairs Ministry, and Jullapong Nonsrichai, executive advisor to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Thailand.
'Cambodia and Thailand reiterated to China their commitment to the ceasefire consensus and expressed appreciation for China's positive role in de-escalating the situation,' a statement from China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs said.
China said the informal meeting was its 'latest diplomatic effort' and it was playing a 'constructive role in resolving their border dispute," according to the same statement.
China's peacemaking efforts reflects its 'serious concerns' about another conflict so close to its borders, said Thitinan Pongsudhirak, a professor of international relations at Thailand's Chulalongkorn University, citing the ongoing Myanmar civil war.
'The Chinese and U.S. interests align on this, which is very rare,' he said. 'China does not want more instability in its backyard. And Trump wants to have another peacemaking win.'
Others say that China's move to publicize its diplomacy was a response to the U.S. approach.
'Trump's approach of linking tariff deals to sensitivity sovereignty issues has undeniably been effective, but I doubt this will be good for the U.S in the long run,' said Tita Sanglee, an associate fellow at the ISEAS–Yusof Ishak Institute in Singapore. 'China is likely to seize on this contrast to present itself as the more understanding and respectful mediator.'
Alleged breach of ceasefire
Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Manet and Thailand's acting prime minister, Phumtham Wechayachai, agreed on Monday to an 'unconditional' halt in fighting, which has killed at least 41 people.
The meeting was hosted by Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim as annual chair of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. He called the ceasefire a 'vital first step towards de-escalation and the restoration of peace and security.'
The ceasefire was brokered with U.S. pressure, as Trump said he would not move forward with trade agreements if the conflict continued.
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Washington welcomed the ceasefire declaration.
'President (Donald) Trump and I are committed to an immediate cessation of violence and expect the governments of Cambodia and Thailand to fully honor their commitments to end this conflict,' Rubio said in a statement.
But the Thai army said there was an attack Tuesday night in Phu Makhuea, a mountain in a disputed area next to Thaikand's Sisaket province.
The Thai government separately said it has complained to Malaysia, the U.S. and China about Cambodia's alleged breach of the ceasefire agreement previously.
Cambodia and Thailand have clashed in the past over their 800-kilometer (500-mile) border. The fighting began Thursday after a land mine explosion along the border wounded five Thai soldiers. Tensions had been growing since May when a Cambodian soldier was killed in a confrontation that created a diplomatic rift and roiled Thailand's domestic politics.
Residents face limbo
By Wednesday, there were some signs of calm along the border, with some of the more than 260,000 people displaced by the fighting returning to their homes. Still, many remain behind in evacuation shelters, uncertain of their fate.
Vendor Kanchana Sukjit, 33, said she fled home near the Ta Muen Thom temple with a few belongings and her small white-colored dog Nam Khaeng, which means ice in Thai. The temple had been one of the main flashpoints in the conflict over the past week.
It was the first time she had to flee home like this and she was worried as she waited for clearer instructions about what happens next.
'I'm stressed when I read the news, like when reports said they were going to fire (a long-range rocket), because my home is right next to a military camp. I was quite stressed that day because I was afraid that my home would get caught in a crossfire,' she said.
___
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
29 minutes ago
- Reuters
China to crack down on 'herd behaviour' in emerging sector investment
BEIJING, Aug 1 (Reuters) - China will crack down on "herd behaviour" in investment in emerging sectors and tighten oversight of local governments' investment promotions, officials at the state planner said on Friday. "Currently, 'involution' and disorderly competition appeared in some industries," Wang Renfei, an official at the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), said at a media briefing. "In emerging sectors, we will continue to encourage innovation and appropriate competition, while resolutely opposing blind imitation and strictly preventing herd behaviour, such as everyone rushing in or out at once," Wang said. Chinese leaders have signalled their intention to rein in price wars among producers, as expectations grow for a new round of factory capacity cuts in a long-awaited but challenging campaign against deflation, a move that could pose risks to economic growth. NDRC did not specify which new sectors could be targeted. However, analysts expect Beijing to focus first on high-profile industries once touted as the "new three" growth drivers — autos, batteries, and solar panels — which state media now singles out for engaging in price wars. China will seek to better combine the roles of an effective market and a proactive government, leveraging the strengths of both, standardising government conduct, and further clarifying which investment promotion practices are encouraged or prohibited, Wang said. Local governments have strived to attract investment for years as foreign investors diversify their production bases amid rising trade uncertainties and property developers stop the purchase of state land aggressively. Jiang Yi, another NDRC official, noted at the same press conference that healthy competition can benefit consumers as long as it remains within reasonable limits. "If competition goes too far, leading to disorderly low-price competition, declining quality, cutdown of services, infringement and counterfeiting, it will harm consumers' rights and drag down firms' development," he said. Last week, China released a draft amendment to its pricing law as part of efforts to curb excessive competition and price wars among firms, amid persistent deflationary pressures.
Telegraph
29 minutes ago
- Telegraph
‘A Palestinian state promises to be oppressive, corrupt and radicalised'
Sir Keir Starmer has announced his plan for the UK to officially recognise a Palestinian state in September unless Israel meets a number of conditions. The Prime Minister laid out these terms in a speech at Downing Street. They include Israel agreeing to a ceasefire in Gaza and committing to a two-state solution. In a Telegraph poll, readers were overwhelmingly opposed to the decision, with 86 per cent of over 50,000 voters saying Palestine should not be recognised. Toby Roberts, a Telegraph reader, is stringently opposed to the idea of a Palestinian state, saying: 'There is no evidence the Palestinians are capable of establishing and running a viable state, and a great deal of evidence to suggest that they are not. 'A Palestinian state promises to be oppressive, corrupt, impoverished, aid-dependent, resentful, radicalised, and riven by vicious internal factionalism.' He concludes that it is 'a mystery to me how anyone can think that such an outcome would be in the interests of the neighbouring Arab states or the West'. Margaret Northey, another reader, says Hamas does not want a two-state solution and, as a result of Sir Keir's announcement, 'Hamas will now have even more reason not to agree to a ceasefire'. John Culley echoes this sentiment, expressing dismay that conditions have been imposed on Israel but not on Hamas: 'If we are going to recognise Palestine, surely the conditionality should be aimed at the Palestinians, what about releasing the hostages and Hamas surrendering and/or dissolving itself. 'The current conditional approach still gives the Israeli's a partial veto over the process and incentivises Hamas to try and provoke Israel. It is absolutely bonkers diplomacy.' Nancy Brooks remarks that she thought the report of Sir Keir's announcement must be 'incomplete' as no demand was made that the remaining hostages be released, adding: 'Clearly, a 'solution' is not what this is about, entirely a vote-gathering exercise. Shame on him.' Another reader agrees that the announcement was intended for a domestic as well as international audience: 'Starmer's focus on Gaza is an indication of where power and influence now lies in the Labour Party and the organs of government. 'His pronouncement had nothing to do with peace, justice, morality, or ending the war. It was a piece of theatre pandering to Labour's shrinking voter base; gesture politics of the most shameless kind.' 'The only solution is a two-state one' A minority of Telegraph readers sought to make the case in support of the Prime Minister's announcement, with one saluting Sir Keir for having 'the leadership to stand up to bullying and intimidation from Trump and Netanyahu'. Hedley Smith argues that the announcement did not reward Hamas and 'you either recognise a state out of principle or you don't', adding: 'The conditions of statehood are either met or they are not: it shouldn't be conditional and used like a bargaining chip. I think they should have been a state a long time ago and I don't believe that right can be bargained away.' Nik Hill and Jennifer Morris both take a historical view when it came to arguing in favour of recognising Palestinian statehood. Nik said: 'The UN called for an independent Palestine and Israel to be recognised back in 1947. It's about time it actually happened. 'That's not rewarding Hamas (no Hamas in the West Bank for example). It's simply accepting that the only solution is a two-state one.' Jennifer concurred and cited the Balfour Declaration of 1917 that expressed British support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine but also that the rights of the existing inhabitants would be protected. She says that no government 'stepped in as Israel took more land for their settlements' and that 'it is time to do the right thing' for the Palestinians. 'The Arab world gets it. Starmer doesn't' Many readers also compared and contrasted the reaction of the British state with that of the Arab world. Soon after Sir Keir's announcement, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Egypt called for Hamas to surrender control of Gaza and disarm. Natalie Brooks writes that the Prime Minister's ultimatum to Israel 'has proven to be as ineffectual and meaningless as he is… even Arab nations are suggesting Hamas needs to come to the table'. Other readers weigh in: 'You couldn't make it up! Arab nations insist that Hamas surrenders, while the British Prime Minister (unintentionally, no doubt) offers it encouragement to continue! The Arab world gets it. Starmer doesn't.'
Daily Mail
29 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Albanese's approach to Trump hailed as 'cool' by ally
Donald Trump has resisted pressure to increase tariffs on Australian goods in a 'vindication' of the federal government's diplomatic efforts, the trade minister says. While many new tariffs unveiled by the US president increase levies on products from America's trading partners, most Australian exports have been spared but will continue to incur a 10 per cent baseline tariff. Some in America had pushed Mr Trump to lift tariffs on Australian goods, but Trade Minister Don Farrell (pictured) said the president resisted the calls. 'There had been some pressure in the American system for an increase, but President Trump had decided to maintain that 10 per cent,' he told reporters in Adelaide on Friday. 'This is a vindication for the Albanese government and particularly the prime minister, in the cool and calm way that we have conducted diplomacy with the United States. This decision by the United States government is a very positive one for our relationship.' There had been speculation that Australian goods would be hit with a higher levy, given Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has so far failed to secure a face-to-face meeting with the president and after Mr Trump on Tuesday said he was planning a new tariff 'for the world' in the 15-20 per cent range. Australia will keep pushing for a full exemption from the US tariffs, with Senator Farrell inviting US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick to continue discussions. But it's unclear if the government will be successful. No US trading partner has managed to totally dodge the tariffs, and the 10 per cent rate is the lowest most can hope for. 'I'm hopeful that this is the end of the matter now, and that the American government maintains that 10 per cent, and that our producers, our winemakers, can get back to a normal relationship with the United States where we don't have to worry about changes in tariff rates,' Senator Farrell said. The Trump administration has released details of country-specific tariff rates for dozens of nations, hours before the passing of its self-imposed August 1 deadline. New Zealand goods will be subject to a greater 15 per cent tariff, as will exports from Fiji and Papua New Guinea. More punitive rates have been imposed on products from several major US trading partners including Canada and India, with the new tariffs due to come into effect on August 7. In a statement, the White House said tariffs were increased on countries that failed to engage in negotiations with the US or take adequate steps to 'align sufficiently on economic and national security matters'. The Albanese government recently wound back biosecurity restrictions on US beef imports, although ministers insist the move was a coincidence and not in response to the tariffs. The US has complained to Australia about non-tariff trade barriers including longstanding restrictions on beef following a prior outbreak of mad cow disease, and the federal government's decision to lift restrictions on US beef imports was hailed as a victory by Mr Trump.
