
Thailand-Cambodia Clash Tests US Against Growing China Influence in Asia
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
A deadly and dramatic escalation in a decades-long border dispute between Thailand and Cambodia is the latest challenge to U.S. President Donald Trump's vow to enforce a more peaceful international order.
But the fiery bout in Southeast Asia also marks a test for Washington's waning influence in a region viewed as a crucial theater in a geopolitical competition between the United States and China.
"This crisis represents a critical test of American and Chinese influence in Southeast Asia," Sophal Ear, a regional expert and associate professor at Arizona State University's Thunderbird School of Management, told Newsweek.
"For the U.S., Thailand is a key strategic partner, essential to sustaining American military and diplomatic presence in the region," Ear said. "For China, Cambodia is a central player in its regional ambitions under the Belt and Road Initiative, serving as a strategic foothold."
He argued that "both powers recognize significant stakes: instability could undermine their respective regional alliances and economic interests, while an overly aggressive stance risks deepening geopolitical competition."
A Cambodian soldier stands on a truck carrying a Russian-made BM-21 rocket launcher traveling along a street in Oddar Meanchey province on July 25, 2025.
A Cambodian soldier stands on a truck carrying a Russian-made BM-21 rocket launcher traveling along a street in Oddar Meanchey province on July 25, 2025.
TANG CHHIN SOTHY/AFP/Getty Images
Another U.S. Setback
The latest Thailand-Cambodia border dispute dates back to 1907, when a map drawn during French colonial rule in Cambodia marked a boundary still cited by Cambodian officials today. Thai officials dispute this demarcation and claim territory beyond it, including ancient Khmer-era Hindu temples, such as Preah Vihear, despite two International Court of Justice rulings favoring Cambodia's claims.
Their rivalry has played out against the backdrop of broader international conflicts among world powers, including World War II and the Cold War. A decade before the U.S. war in Vietnam, then divided between a communist north and a nationalist south, Thailand joined the U.S.-backed Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO), serving as a bulwark against the spread of communism in the region.
North Vietnam would emerge victorious against the U.S., uniting the nation and quickly going to war with the rival China-backed Khmer Rouge communist leadership of Cambodia, leading to its downfall. Thailand, meanwhile, remained a staunch ally of the U.S. anti-communist posturing in Asia. However, its prominence in Washington's foreign policy has declined in recent decades, particularly as the U.S. has intensified its relations with its former foe, Vietnam.
China, meanwhile, has invested heavily in ties with all countries in the region, including Cambodia, Thailand and Vietnam. However, as Beijing's growing global presence occupies a larger space in U.S. foreign policy, some argue that its attention to Thailand has been sidelined.
"I think the U.S. already flunked the test and that should be a wakeup call," Evan Feigenbaum, vice president for studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and former deputy assistant secretary at the U.S. State Department, told Newsweek.
"Because if the U.S. frame on Southeast Asia is that it's all about fighting the proxy fight with China for influence," he said, "the fact that the U.S. is now missing in action and really has no leverage to bring to bear on either party, should tell you everything."
Royal Thai Army soldiers are pictured on U.S.-built M1126 armored vehicles on a road in Chachoengsao province on July 24, 2025.
Royal Thai Army soldiers are pictured on U.S.-built M1126 armored vehicles on a road in Chachoengsao province on July 24, 2025.
LILLIAN SUWANRUMPHA/AFP/Getty Images
China's Balancing Act
Both the U.S. and China have called for de-escalation since the fighting first erupted Thursday, with at least 15 killed and dozens wounded. The Thai military has since claimed that more than 100 Cambodian soldiers have been killed as fighting spread throughout their rugged border, spanning some 500 miles.
"The United States is gravely concerned by reports of the escalating fighting along the Thailand-Cambodia border," the State Department said in a statement issued Thursday.
"We are particularly alarmed by reports of harm to innocent civilians," the statement added. "We express our deepest condolences on the loss of life. We strongly urge the immediate cessation of attacks, protection of civilians, and peaceful settlement of disputes."
Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi called the situation "deeply distressing and concerning" and urged a "calm and careful handling." At the same time, he argued that the "issue lies in the legacy left by Western colonial powers."
"As a mutual neighbor and friend to both Cambodia and Thailand, China is committed to maintaining an objective and impartial stance, and will continue to play a constructive role in helping to de-escalate tensions and ease the situation," Wang said Friday during a meeting with Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) chair Kao Kim Hourn, who is seeking to mediate the conflict.
While Cambodia is traditionally viewed as a close partner of China, Beijing's neutrality is also informed by its efforts to maintain and develop close relations with Thailand.
"The more logical model for [China], where their interests are threatened is to just kind of bring the hammer down quietly," Feigenbaum said. "But I think their calculation would be that they would pay a cost with both they really don't want to take sides between these two, because they want good relations with both of them."
"So, they'd either have to bring pressure to bear on both of them simultaneously, or choose a side," he added. "The latter is not an option for them."
Further complicating any external role are the charged domestic politics that have helped fuel tensions to the point of open conflict.
After frictions intensified in May when an exchange of cross-border fire led to the death of a Cambodian soldier, Thai Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra was caught in a leaked phone call addressing Cambodian Senate President and former Prime Minister Hun Sen with terms of endearment and criticizing Thai military leadership. The incident led to her suspension from office and has threatened her already fragile ruling coalition.
As for whether the U.S. could step in where China was hesitant, Feigenbaum was doubtful, seeing Beijing as now closer to Washington's oldest ally in Asia.
"The U.S. really doesn't have the influence anymore on Thailand, so the idea that Thailand is some kind of U.S. proxy is nonsense," he said. "And meanwhile, China has a good relationship with the royal family in Thailand, they're the number one trading partner. They're the number one investment partner."
"The U.S. is still important economically," he said," but in relative terms, China, in a lot of ways, has become much more important."
Risk of Escalation
Derek Grossman, a former U.S. intelligence official now serving as a professor at the University of Southern California, also believed that the Thailand-Cambodia conflict had yet to escalate to a Cold War-style proxy conflict, similar to the one the U.S. engaged in against China and the Soviet Union in Vietnam.
At the same time, he warned that the situation had the potential to further drag in the world's top two powers should it continue to escalate.
"While it is true that Thailand is a security ally of the U.S. and Cambodia is a close partner of China, both Washington and Beijing have called for an immediate ceasefire and de-escalation," Grossman told Newsweek, "and thus there isn't a proxy struggle playing out to achieve strategic advantage in Indochina—at least not yet."
"That said, if the conflict worsens, it's likely that the U.S. and China would deepen their support for their respective friends," Grossman added. "Beijing has already said, for example, that the reason for the conflict was due to Western colonialism—a clear knock against powers external to the region."
Grossman also noted how Thailand has thus far turned down international mediation efforts in favor of direct talks, a tactic he said could be attributed to the belief that it "has the upper hand militarily and that it has Washington in its corner if the crisis escalates."
Meanwhile, Ear warned that, "if China hawks frame it as U.S.-ally Thailand v. China-backed Cambodia, this might be seen as a proxy war brewing even though this has nothing to do with China," while noting the most likely path for both Beijing and Washington was "to encourage diplomacy and de-escalation."
"The career diplomats are busy writing their statements, I'm sure," Ear said. "I just hope the politicos aren't too preoccupied between Epstein files, to pay the attention to this regional conflict."
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Analysis-Trump may look like he's winning the trade war, but hurdles remain
By Andrea Shalal WASHINGTON (Reuters) -At a glance, U.S. President Donald Trump appears to be winning the trade war he unleashed after returning to the White House in January, bending major trading partners to his will, imposing double-digit tariff rates on nearly all imports, narrowing the trade deficit, and raking in tens of billions of dollars a month in much-needed cash for federal government coffers. Significant hurdles remain, however, including whether U.S. trading partners will make good on investment and goods-purchase commitments, how much tariffs will drive up inflation or stymie demand and growth, and whether the courts allow many of his ad-hoc levies to stand. On inauguration day, the effective U.S. tariff rate was about 2.5%. It has since jumped to somewhere between 17% and 19%, according to a range of estimates. The Atlantic Council estimates it will edge closer to 20%, the highest in a century, with higher duties taking effect on Thursday. Trading partners have largely refrained from retaliatory tariffs, sparing the global economy from a more painful tit-for-tat trade war. Data on Tuesday showed a 16% narrowing of the U.S. trade deficit in June, while the U.S. trade gap with China shrank to its smallest in more than 21 years. American consumers have shown themselves to be more resilient than expected, but some recent data indicate the tariffs are already affecting jobs, growth and inflation. "The question is, what does winning mean?" said Josh Lipsky, who heads economic studies at the Atlantic Council. "He's raising tariffs on the rest of the world and avoiding a retaliatory trade war far easier than even he anticipated, but the bigger question is what effect does that have on the U.S. economy." Michael Strain, head of economic policy studies at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said Trump's geopolitical victories could prove hollow. "In a geopolitical sense, Trump's obviously getting tons of concessions from other countries, but in an economic sense, he's not winning the trade war," he said. "What we're seeing is that he is more willing to inflict economic harm on Americans than other countries are willing to inflict on their nations. And I think of that as losing." Kelly Ann Shaw, a White House trade adviser during Trump's first term who is now a partner at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, said a still-strong economy and near-record-high stock prices "support a more aggressive tariff strategy." But Trump's tariffs, tax cuts, deregulation and policies to boost energy production would take time to play out. "I think history will judge these policies, but he is the first president in my lifetime to make major changes to the global trading system," she added. DEALS SO FAR Trump has concluded eight framework agreements with the European Union, Japan, Britain, South Korea, Vietnam, Indonesia, Pakistan and the Philippines that impose tariffs on their goods ranging from 10% to 20%. That's well short of the "90 deals in 90 days" administration officials had touted in April, but they account for some 40% of U.S. trade flows. Adding in China, currently saddled with a 30% levy on its goods but likely to win another reprieve from even higher tariffs before an August 12 deadline, would raise that to nearly 54%. Deals aside, many of Trump's tariff actions have been mercurial. On Wednesday he ratcheted up pressure on India, doubling new tariffs on goods from there to 50% from 25% because of its imports of oil from Russia. The same rate is in store for goods from Brazil, after Trump complained about its prosecution of former leader Jair Bolsonaro, a Trump ally. And Switzerland, which Trump had previously praised, is facing 39% tariffs after a conversation between its leader and Trump derailed a deal. Ryan Majerus, a trade lawyer who worked in both the first Trump administration and the Biden government, said what's been announced so far fails to address "longstanding, politically entrenched trade issues" that have bothered U.S. policymakers for decades, and getting there would likely take "months, if not years." He also noted they lack specific enforcement mechanisms for the big investments announced, including $550 billion for Japan and $600 billion for the EU. PROMISES AND RISKS Critics lit into European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen after she agreed to a 15% tariff during a surprise meeting with Trump during his trip to Scotland last month, while gaining little in return. The deal frustrated winemakers and farmers, who had sought a zero-for-zero tariff. Francois-Xavier Huard, head of France's FNIL national dairy sector federation, said 15% was better than the threatened 30%, but would still cost dairy farmers millions of euros. European experts say von der Leyen's move did avert higher tariffs, calmed tensions with Trump, averting potentially higher duties on semiconductors, pharmaceuticals and cars, while making largely symbolic pledges to buy $750 billion of U.S. strategic goods and invest over $600 billion. Meeting those pledges will fall to individual EU members and companies, and cannot be mandated by Brussels, trade experts and analysts note. U.S. officials insist Trump can re-impose higher tariffs if he believes the EU, Japan or others are not honoring their commitments. But it remains unclear how that would be policed. And history offers a caution. China, with its state-run economy, never met its modest purchase agreements under Trump's Phase 1 U.S.-China trade deal. Holding it to account proved difficult for the subsequent Biden administration. "All of it is untested. The EU, Japan and South Korea are going to have to figure out how to operationalize this," Shaw said. "It's not just government purchases. It's getting the private sector motivated to either make investments or back loans, or to purchase certain commodities." And lastly, the main premise for the tariffs Trump has imposed unilaterally faces legal challenges. His legal team met with stiff questioning during appellate court oral arguments over his novel use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, historically used for sanctioning enemies or freezing their assets, to justify his tariffs. A ruling could come any time and regardless of the outcome seems destined to be settled ultimately by the Supreme Court. Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
What we know about Trump and Putin's Ukraine ceasefire face-to-face meeting
The US and Russian presidents are set to discuss the ongoing war in Ukraine in a face-to-face meeting Donald Trump is set to meet with Vladimir Putin 'in the coming days' to discuss the ongoing war in Ukraine, officials in Russia have said. News of a possible face-to-face meeting between the US and Russian presidents was first touted by Trump and the White House on Wednesday. The New York Times reported that Trump told European leaders during a call on Wednesday that he intended to meet with Putin and then follow up with a further meeting that would include Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelensky. Trump told reporters: 'There's a good chance that there will be a meeting very soon.' White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt also said: 'The Russians expressed their desire to meet with president Trump, and the president is open to meeting with both president Putin and president Zelensky.' On Thursday, the Kremlin confirmed the meeting is planned for the next few days, marking the first summit between leaders of the two countries since 2021. But he did not comment on the possibility of another meeting including Zelensky. According to the Interfax news agency, Moscow's foreign affairs adviser Yuri Ushakov said: 'At the suggestion of the American side, an agreement was essentially reached to hold a bilateral meeting at the highest level in the coming days, that is, a meeting between president Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump. 'We are now beginning concrete preparations together with our American colleagues.' No details have been given as to where the summit would take place but a possible venue could be the United Arab Emirates, where Putin is due to fly to on Thursday for a meeting with its president. News of the meeting comes days before the deadline set by Trump for Russia to agree to peace in Ukraine or face new sanctions runs out. Trump has been increasingly frustrated with Putin over the lack of progress towards peace and has threatened to impose heavy tariffs on countries that buy Russian exports, including oil.

Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
If Trump's redistricting war comes to Indiana, Indiana Democrats will have few weapons
Amid a White House pressure campaign to redraw congressional district lines, Democrats in Indiana are vowing to fight back. In their most recent fundraising email, Indiana House Democrats evoked their 2011 walkout over right-to-work legislation opposed by labor unions. Texas Democrats are using the same tactic to block the adoption of a new congressional map sought by President Donald Trump to help Republicans keep control of the U.S. House in the 2026 election. "In 2011, our Hoosier Democratic legislators walked out of the General Assembly to fight for workers' rights. We were willing to put it all on the line to protect our state from extreme government overreach," the email says. "We know the fight our fellow Democrats are going through down south, and we know it may be only a matter of time before Indiana is next." The fundraising pitch, however, omits a key fact: Republicans hold supermajorities in both chambers of the Indiana General Assembly, meaning they have enough members for a quorum even without a single Democrat present. The omission highlights a bleak truth for Indiana Democrats. Unlike their colleagues in Texas, they would be virtually powerless to stop a vote on new congressional maps. "They don't have options," said Tip Kew, a former chairman of the Indiana Democratic Party. "They can't break quorum. All they can do is use rhetoric and protest." Indiana will be in the spotlight when Vice President J.D. Vance flies to Indianapolis on Aug. 7 to meet with Gov. Mike Braun and Republican legislative leaders about the possibility of redrawing the state's congressional maps. Republicans already control seven of Indiana's nine congressional districts, but they believe they could flip at least one of the other seats if they redraw district boundaries. Making such changes mid-decade is highly unusual. Typically, state lawmakers only redraw maps for Congress and the General Assembly to account for population shifts after the decennial census. The process is notoriously political. Trump is pushing red states to make changes now to give Republicans a boost in the mid-term elections, which tend to favor the party outside of the White House. The redistricting process is already underway in Republican-led Texas where new congressional maps would give the GOP in that state five additional U.S. House seats. Texas Democrats fled to Illinois on Aug. 3 to disrupt legislative procedures. Leaders of Democratic-controlled states have threatened to redraw, setting the stage for a redistricting arms race. In Indiana, Republican Gov. Mike Braun has not ruled out the possibility of calling a special session to draw new maps. Indiana House Speaker Todd Huston, R-Fishers, and Indiana Senate majority leader Rodric Bray, R-Martinsville, are expected to meet with Vance as well. The top Democrat in the Indiana House, Rep. Phil GiaQuinta of Fort Wayne, acknowledged his caucus's limitations in a statement to IndyStar. "Unfortunately, with the breakdown of the Indiana House of Representatives as it currently stands, a walkout from our caucus would not hinder Indiana Republicans from meeting quorum and distorting Indiana's congressional maps to silence the voices of the people," he said. Instead, Democrats will focus on advocating for fair maps, and encouraging constituents to call their elected officials and "participate in civil demonstrations to share their thoughts and concerns." "Republicans are trying to rig the game at halftime because they know they're down," he said. "Hoosiers always lose when their elected officials abuse their power in a pathetic attempt to maintain it." Democrats have attributed their weakened state in part to previous Republican-controlled redistricting. Democrats won 40% to 41% percent of the vote last year in Indiana's races for governor and president, but they have less than 27% of seats in the General Assembly and 22% of Indiana's congressional seats. "They can take more power," Tew said, "because they have so much power." The diminished strength of Democrats leaves them with few options. Even a legal challenge seems like a questionable tactic after a 2019 U.S. Supreme Court decision that partisan gerrymandering claims are "beyond the reach of the federal courts," said Indiana Democratic Party Chair Karen Tallian. With no other strategies at their disposal, Democrats are hoping that what they see as a power grab by Trump and his allies at the Statehouse will stoke a massive response from voters, even if the topic of redistricting has failed to garner much passion from Hoosiers in the past. "Public opinion is a big factor here," Tallian said. "If you get enough people mad, you can break a 60% Republican district." Democrats are hoping to rally supporters during Vance's visit with a sit-in at the Statehouse on Aug. 7 beginning at 8 a.m. The two members of Congress likely to be targeted in any redistricting effort — Democratic U.S. Reps. Frank Mrvan and André Carson — are scheduled to speak at 12:30 p.m. Contact IndyStar reporter Tony Cook at 317-444-6081 or Follow him on X: @IndyStarTony. This article originally appeared on Indianapolis Star: In Trump's redistricting war, Indiana Democrats will have few weapons