Thailand pushes for diplomacy after ex-Cambodia PM's 'extraordinary' attack
Thailand's Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra speaks to administrative officials at the 12th Infantry Regiment, 3rd Infantry Battalion (Fort Surasinghanat) of a Thailand-Cambodia border town of Aranyaprathet district, as she battles to stay in power after drawing sharp criticism of her handling of a border row with Cambodia, in Sa Kaeo province, Thailand, June 26, 2025. REUTERS/Athit Perawongmetha
BANGKOK (Reuters) -Thailand's foreign ministry said on Friday it was taken aback by an unprecedented public attack on the Thai premier and her family by Cambodia's influential former leader, but stressed the need for diplomacy to resolve an escalating bilateral dispute.
In a televised address that lasted more than three hours, veteran Cambodian politician Hun Sen rebuked Thai Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra for her handling of a festering border row between the neighbours.
Hun Sen, who led Cambodia for nearly four decades until stepping down in 2023, also took aim at Paetongtarn's father, divisive billionaire former premier Thaksin Shinawatra, until recently his close ally.
"It surprised us, and it's quite extraordinary in terms of diplomatic norms," foreign ministry spokesman Nikorndej Balankura told Reuters.
"Thailand has opened a lot of doors, and I insist that these doors remain open even after what happened this morning."
Hun Sen, who is now president of Cambodia's senate but still holds enormous clout, accused Paetongtarn of looking down at him and his son, Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Manet.
On Thaksin, who faces an impending court case over the legitimacy of a hospital stay that allowed him to skip prison time, Hun Sen said the former Thai leader faked his illness.
"Thaksin was not sick," he said. "He pretended to be sick."
Paetongtarn, 38, has come under enormous domestic pressure following the leak of the audio of June 15 phone call between her and Hun Sen, in which she appeared overtly deferential to him and also criticised a Thai military commander.
That call came after an escalation in tensions along a disputed border between the Southeast Asian nations, where a Cambodian soldier was killed in a brief exchange of gunfire with Thai forces in late May.
Despite Hun Sen's public vilification, Thailand is working to open a dialogue between both foreign ministers.
"We are looking at the earliest possible venue where both sides can talk," Nikorndej said. "Speaking for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, we are a strong advocate for peaceful resolution through dialogue."
At the root of the current tensions is a longstanding dispute over various undemarcated points along their 817 km (508 miles) land border.
Following the recent flare-up, which also led to reinforcement of troop on both sides of the border, Cambodia said it would seek resolution by the International Court of Justice.
Thailand does not recognise the ICJ's jurisdiction, but has gathered legal teams to study Cambodia's application and also talked with members of the United Nation Security Council to push its position, Nikorndej said, without naming those members.
"We're doing everything we can to try to convince Cambodia to come to bilateral talks," Nikorndej said.
(Additional reporting by Chantha Lach in Phnom Penh, Writing by Devjyot Ghoshal; Editing by Martin Petty)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Star
an hour ago
- The Star
In win for Trump, US Supreme Court limits judges' power to block birthright citizenship order
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court dealt a blow on Friday to the power of federal judges by restricting their ability to grant broad legal relief in cases as the justices acted in a legal fight over President Donald Trump's bid to limit birthright citizenship, ordering lower courts that blocked the policy to reconsider the scope of their orders. However, the court's 6-3 ruling authored by conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett did not let Trump's policy go into effect immediately and did not address the policy's legality. The justices granted a request by the Trump administration to narrow the scope of three nationwide injunctions issued by federal judges in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state that halted enforcement of his directive while litigation challenging the policy plays out. The ruling was written by conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett. With the court's conservatives in the majority and its liberals dissenting, the ruling specified that Trump's executive order cannot take effect until 30 days after Friday's ruling. "No one disputes that the Executive has a duty to follow the law. But the Judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation - in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the Judiciary from doing so," Barrett wrote. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a dissent joined by the court's other two liberal members, wrote, "The majority ignores entirely whether the President's executive order is constitutional, instead focusing only on the question whether federal courts have the equitable authority to issue universal injunctions. Yet the order's patent unlawfulness reveals the gravity of the majority's error and underscores why equity supports universal injunctions as appropriate remedies in this kind of case." Trump welcomed the ruling in a social media post. "GIANT WIN in the United States Supreme Court," Trump wrote on Truth Social. On his first day back in office, Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the United States who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also called a "green card" holder. More than 150,000 newborns would be denied citizenship annually under Trump's directive, according to the plaintiffs who challenged it, including the Democratic attorneys general of 22 states as well as immigrant rights advocates and pregnant immigrants. The case before the Supreme Court was unusual in that the administration used it to argue that federal judges lack the authority to issue nationwide, or "universal," injunctions, and asked the justices to rule that way and enforce the president's directive even without weighing its legal merits. In her dissent, Sotomayor said Trump's executive order is obviously unconstitutional. So rather than defend it on the merits, she wrote, the Justice Department "asks this Court to hold that, no matter how illegal a law or policy, courts can never simply tell the Executive to stop enforcing it against anyone." "The gamesmanship in this request is apparent and the Government makes no attempt to hide it," Sotomayor wrote. "Yet, shamefully, this Court plays along." Federal judges have taken steps including issuing nationwide orders impeding Trump's aggressive use of executive action to advance his agenda. 'ILLEGAL AND CRUEL' The American Civil Liberties Union called the ruling troubling, but limited, because lawyers can seek additional protections for potentially affected families. "The executive order is blatantly illegal and cruel. It should never be applied to anyone," said Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project. "The court's decision to potentially open the door to enforcement is disappointing, but we will do everything in our power to ensure no child is ever subjected to the executive order." The plaintiffs argued that Trump's directive ran afoul of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 in the aftermath of the Civil War of 1861-1865 that ended slavery in the United States. The 14th Amendment's citizenship clause states that all "persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." The administration contends that the 14th Amendment, long understood to confer citizenship to virtually anyone born in the United States, does not extend to immigrants who are in the country illegally or even to immigrants whose presence is lawful but temporary, such as university students or those on work visas. Washington state Attorney General Nick Brown, whose state helped secure the nationwide injunction issued by a judge in Seattle, called Friday's ruling "disappointing on many levels" but stressed that the justices "confirmed that courts may issue broad injunctions when needed to provide complete relief to the parties." In a June 11-12 Reuters/Ipsos poll, 24% of all respondents supported ending birthright citizenship and 52% opposed it. Among Democrats, 5% supported ending it, with 84% opposed. Among Republicans, 43% supported ending it, with 24% opposed. The rest said they were unsure or did not respond to the question. The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has handed Trump some important victories on his immigration policies since he returned to office in January. On Monday, it cleared the way for his administration to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own without offering them a chance to show the harms they could face. In separate decisions on May 30 and May 19, it let the administration end the temporary legal status previously given by the government to hundreds of thousands of migrants on humanitarian grounds. But the court on May 16 kept in place its block on Trump's deportations of Venezuelan migrants under a 1798 law historically used only in wartime, faulting his administration for seeking to remove them without adequate due process. The court heard arguments in the birthright citizenship dispute on May 15. U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, representing the administration, told the justices that Trump's order "reflects the original meaning of the 14th Amendment, which guaranteed citizenship to the children of former slaves, not to illegal aliens or temporary visitors." An 1898 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in a case called United States v. Wong Kim Ark long has been interpreted as guaranteeing that children born in the United States to non-citizen parents are entitled to American citizenship. Trump's administration has argued that the court's ruling in that case was narrower, applying to children whose parents had a "permanent domicile and residence in the United States." Universal injunctions have been opposed by presidents of both parties - Republican and Democratic - and can prevent the government from enforcing a policy against anyone, instead of just the individual plaintiffs who sued to challenge the policy. Proponents have said they are an efficient check on presidential overreach, and have stymied actions deemed unlawful by presidents of both parties. (Reporting by Andrew Chung; Editing by Will Dunham)
New Straits Times
an hour ago
- New Straits Times
IDF under investigation for alleged war crimes at Gaza aid zones
JERUSALEM: Israel's Military Advocate General has ordered an investigation into possible war crimes over allegations that Israeli forces deliberately fired at Palestinian civilians near Gaza aid distribution sites, Haaretz newspaper reported on Friday. Hundreds of Palestinians have been killed over the past month in the vicinity of areas where food was being handed out, local hospitals and officials have said. Haaretz, a left-leaning Israeli newspaper, quoted unnamed Israeli soldiers as saying they were told to fire at the crowds to keep them back, using unnecessary lethal force against people who appeared to pose no threat. The military told Reuters that the Israel Defence Forces had not instructed soldiers to deliberately shoot at civilians. It added that it was looking to improve "the operational response" in the aid areas and had recently installed new fencing and signs, and opened additional routes to reach the handout zones. Haaretz quoted unnamed sources as saying that the army unit established to review incidents that may involve breaches of international law had been tasked with examining soldiers' actions near aid locations over the past month. The military told Reuters that some incidents were being reviewed by relevant authorities. It added: "Any allegation of a deviation from the law or IDF directives will be thoroughly examined, and further action will be taken as necessary." There is an acute shortage of food and other basic supplies after the nearly two-year-old military campaign by Israel against Hamas fighters in Gaza that has reduced much of the enclave to rubble and displaced most of its two million inhabitants. Thousands of people gather around distribution centres desperately awaiting the next deliveries, but there have been near daily reports of shootings and killings on the approach routes. Medics said six people were killed by gunfire on Friday as they sought to get food in southern Gaza Strip. In all, more than 500 people have died near aid centres operated by the US-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) or in areas where UN food trucks were set to pass since late May, the Gaza health authorities have said. The unnamed Israeli soldiers told Haaretz that military commanders had ordered troops to shoot at the crowds of Palestinians to disperse them and clear the area. During a closed-door meeting with senior Military Advocate General officials this week, legal representatives rejected IDF claims that the incidents were isolated cases, Haaretz reported. There has been widespread confusion about access to the aid, with the army imposing for a time a 6pm to 6am curfew on approach routes to GHF sites. But locals often have to set out well before dawn to have any chance of retrieving food. The Gaza war began when Hamas launched a surprise attack on Israel on Oct 7, 2023, killing nearly 1,200 people, mostly civilians, and taking 251 others hostage into the enclave. In response, Israel launched a military campaign that has killed more than 56,000 Palestinians, the majority of them civilians, according to local health authorities in Gaza.
The Star
an hour ago
- The Star
Brazil government to challenge tax hike reversal in Supreme Court, O Globo reports
FILE PHOTO: A general view of the plenary chamber of deputies during a session at the National Congress in Brasilia, Brazil December 18, 2024. REUTERS/Adriano Machado/File Photo
