Brokering Cambodia-Thailand ceasefire is not about vainglory

New Straits Times

3 days ago

WHAT did they say about trust being like a vase, which once broken, will never be the same again? So, do we leave it in tatters, or try to fix it back to form?
This could well describe the state of play between Cambodia and Thailand sharing a border which has long been an unruly frontier, where old maps, national pride and political survival intersect.
The trust deficit between the two considerably outweighs the cultivated goodwill, leaving no illusion that whatever peace struck on the anvil of diplomacy will be ironclad.
Thus, the brokering of a ceasefire between the two following recent clashes is a reminder that diplomacy's true measure lies not in sweeping settlements, but in holding the line against worse outcomes.
Tensions that began simmering in May erupted as Cambodian and Thai troops exchanged fire in disputed territory along the Dangrek mountains.
Thanks to the trust shortfall, what began as a familiar border clash escalated sharply when Cambodia deployed multiple launch rocket systems that hit a hospital, among other targets, prompting Thailand to respond with F-16 jet strikes, possibly the first time its air force had fired in anger since a brief border war with Laos in 1987.
Tens of thousands fled to makeshift camps. The fighting was the most intense in more than a decade.
On July 28, Cambodia and Thailand agreed to halt hostilities from midnight. Meeting in Putrajaya under Malaysia's chairmanship of Asean, both prime ministers accepted an immediate and unconditional ceasefire.
The agreement was the product of painstaking, unglamorous but by no means lacklustre facilitation by Malaysia, with the United States playing a consequential, parallel role. US President Donald Trump added urgency by warning that tariff negotiations with both countries would not proceed until "fighting stops".
China, present as an observer, lent additional weight to the talks — particularly important for Cambodia, which counts Beijing as its most dependable backer.
The optics mattered: the message was that de-escalation was in everyone's interest, and that Malaysia's convening role was part of a wider diplomatic effort, not an exercise in rivalry.
Reaching the ceasefire was never a foregone conclusion as, not surprisingly, the two sides took diametrically opposed approaches to handling the dispute.
Phnom Penh sought to internationalise the issue, reviving old appeals to the International Court of Justice and casting itself as the aggrieved party. Bangkok insisted on tackling it bilaterally, out of the global spotlight and far from anything that might invite international arbitration. Neither could be seen to back down.
Into this maelstrom stepped Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, who engaged both Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Manet and Thailand's acting Prime Minister Phumtham Wechayachai with care but never so much as to box either side in.
By bringing the two leaders to Putrajaya and offering to coordinate observers, Malaysia showed that an Asean chair willing to act and quick on the draw could still shape events.
The ceasefire was framed as an initial measure to halt the fighting and stabilise the situation, not even as a prelude to dispute resolution.
Follow-up arrangements rely largely on bilateral mechanisms between Cambodia and Thailand, with Asean in a supporting role. That was by design. A heavier Asean role might have triggered resentment and made the arrangement harder to sustain.
But this doesn't preclude Anwar, in his personal capacity, from doing the nudging and cajoling to both parties, more as Asean family members than as chair sitting in council.
All said, while the crucial role of political leaders is undeniable, a lasting pause will require more than cabinet orders. It will need continued discipline from commanders of both sides on the ground.
Anwar stressed that point to members of the Asean diplomatic corps during an interface session in Jakarta, on the sidelines of his visit to Indonesia.
Complaints that Asean failed to resolve the dispute swiftly miss the point entirely. There was never any prospect of conjuring fantasy settlements overnight, a standard at which no international body performs any better.
For Malaysia, this is not a pursuit in vainglory. The role of Asean chair is designed to be facilitative, not proprietorial.
Asean works best when the chair is willing to act, not by trying to foist solutions, but by creating the space and opportunity in which they might one day emerge.