Thais and Cambodians refuse to quit homes on clash frontier
"At 5:00am every day, I hear the loud bangs and booms. Then I run into the woods for cover," the 53-year-old told AFP in the village of Baan Bu An Nong in Surin province, just 40 kilometres (25 miles) from the fraught frontier.
His family of five fled to the capital Bangkok on the first day of clashes on Thursday, but he remains behind with their flock of chickens, three dogs and 14 prized buffalo.
"How could I leave these buffaloes?" he asked, his eyes brimming with emotion.
"I'd be so worried about them. After the strikes I go and console them, telling them 'It's okay. We're together'."
Thailand and Cambodia's clashes have entered their fourth day after a festering dispute over sacred temples ignited into cross-border combat being waged with jets, tanks and group troops.
Peace talks between leaders are scheduled for Monday in Malaysia, the Thai government has said.
In the meantime, at least 34 people have been killed on both sides, mostly civilians, and more than 200,000 have fled their homes along the 800-kilometre border -- a rural area patched with rubber and rice farms.
But on both sides of the tree-clad ridge marking the boundary between the two countries there are many who refuse to evacuate.
As nearby blasts shake Cambodian restauranteur Soeung Chhivling's eaterie she continues to prepare a beef dish, declining to abandon the kitchen where she cooks for troops and medics mobilised to fight Thailand.
"I am also scared, but I want to cook so they have something to eat," said the 48-year-old, near a hospital where wounded civilians and troops are being treated.
"I have no plan to evacuate unless jets drop a lot of bombs," she told AFP in Samraong city, just 20 kilometres from the Thai frontier, where most homes and shops are already deserted.
- 'I'd rather die at home' -
Back on the Thai side, Pranee Ra-ngabpai, a researcher on Thai-Cambodian border issues and a local resident, said many who have chosen to stay behind -- like her own father -- are men who hold traditional and stoic values.
"He is still there in the house right now and refuses to leave," Pranee said. "There's this mindset: 'If I die, I'd rather die at home' or 'I can't leave my cows'."
Baan Bu An Nong has been designated a "red zone" -- meaning it is high risk for air strikes, artillery barrages and even gun battles between ground troops.
But village co-leader Keng Pitonam, 55, is also reluctant to depart. Loading grass onto his three-wheeled cart to feed his livestock, he is now responsible for dozens of neighbours' animals as well as their homes.
"I have to stay -- it's my duty," Keng told AFP.
"I'm not afraid. I can't abandon my responsibilities," he said.
"If someone like me -- a leader -- leaves the village, what would that say? I have to be here to serve the community, no matter what happens."
His local temple has become a makeshift donation and rescue hub, parked with ambulances inside its perimeter.
"I have to stay -- to be a spiritual anchor for those who remain," said the abbot, declining to give his name. "Whatever happens, happens."
Huddled in a bunker just 10 kilometres from the border, Sutian Phiewchan spoke to AFP by phone, pausing as his words were interrupted by the crackle of gunfire.
He remained behind to fulfil his obligations as a volunteer for the local civil defence force, activated to protect the roughly 40 people still staying there.
"Everyone here is afraid and losing sleep," the 49-year-old said.
"We're doing this without pay. But it's about protecting the lives and property of the people in our village."
burs-jts/dhw
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
2 hours ago
- Forbes
One Big Beautiful Bill – The Cost Of Climate Inaction
Storm cloud The One Big Beautiful Bill, signed into law in early July, directly rolls back several core provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act, widely regarded as the most ambitious U.S. climate policy to date. According to Rhodium Group, the bill could cut the build-out of new clean power capacity by 53–59% between 2025 and 2035 and put over $500 billion in clean energy and transportation investments at risk. As the rollback of U.S. climate provisions accelerate, we may one day look back and ask: what was the true price of that decision? Not politically. Not ideologically. But economically. While the scale of the required investments might be daunting, the alternative – climate inaction – would unleash economic and societal damage on a far larger scale. Some of which we are already seeing now. The Price Tag Of Transition: High, But Necessary There's no denying that the global energy transition will require unprecedented levels of investment. According to the IEA, annual investment in renewables must double, and investment in energy efficiency and electrification needs to almost triple within five years, in order to meet global climate targets and support the clean energy tripling goal by 2030 agreed at COP28. Reaching net zero by 2050 will require annual global clean energy investments to rise to $4.5 trillion by the end of this decade. These numbers may seem overwhelming, however much of the spending replaces existing investment needs. Energy systems, transport networks, buildings, and industrial facilities all need ongoing reinvestment – whether it's for clean systems or fossil-based ones. In fact, in 2025 alone, $1.1 trillion is still expected to flow into oil, gas, and coal globally. So, the question isn't whether we invest, but where we direct those investments. TOPSHOT - Electric energy generating wind turbines are seen on a wind farm in the San Gorgonio Pass ... More area on Earth Day, April 22, 2016, near Palm Springs, California. - San Gorgonio Pass is one of the largest wind farm areas in the United States. (Photo by David McNew / AFP) (Photo credit should read DAVID MCNEW/AFP via Getty Images) Each $1 In Climate Action Can Save Up To $14 In Future Damages More importantly, the upfront cost of climate action must be weighed against the immense losses it can avert. According to joint modelling by the University of Cambridge and Boston Consulting Group, investments in mitigation and adaptation of 1-2% of cumulative global GDP from 2025 to 2100 could avoid economic damages worth between 11-27% of cumulative global GDP over the same period. In other words, each dollar spent on climate action could prevent up to 14 dollars in future damages. Failure to act could mean losing up to 25% of future global GDP – three times the total health spending worldwide this century. Even achieving a trajectory below 2°C would not eliminate damage altogether. However, this would limit losses to 2–4% of global GDP, which is much less than the 15–34% expected if temperatures were to rise by 3°C. That represents a permanent drag on global growth, magnified over time by compounding shocks and growing volatility. These losses are not limited to immediate effects from extreme weather events but also include the knock-on effects of climate disruption: lower labor productivity due to heat stress, water scarcity undermining food and energy systems, rising sea levels and droughts forcing mass migration, higher mortality and disease burdens straining healthcare systems, destabilized trade routes, and mounting costs for governments, businesses and customers alike. Iceberg - Hidden Danger And Global Warming Concept - 3d Illustration Climate Change Is Already Here – And Expensive For some, it may be tempting to see these economic impacts as hypothetical – problems for future generations to solve. But that framing is outdated: the losses are already real and increasing. Since the beginning of the century, climate-related disasters have caused over $3.6 trillion in damage globally. And the pace is accelerating. The economic cost of climate-related disasters has more than doubled since the early 2000s: from around $450 billion between 2000 and 2004 to over $1 trillion between 2020 and 2024. In 2023, global insured losses from climate-related events exceeded $100 billion for the fifth consecutive year. In Europe, recent years have brought a series of record-breaking climate events. In Spain for example, this summer has already brought extreme heat, with temperatures exceeding 46°C. The prolonged heatwave triggered wildfires, power outages, hospital surges, and significant agricultural losses – with economic damages in Spain alone estimated at 1.4% of GDP. The United States has had to cope with similar impacts. Estimates for Hurricane Helene, which devastated southeastern U.S. states in September 2024, suggest that this single event could be responsible for over $100 billion in damages, making it one of the costliest hurricanes in U.S. history. These are not one-off events. They are early signals of what's to come. As global temperatures continue to rise, the frequency and intensity of such disasters is projected to increase dramatically. You don't have to be an economist to grasp where this is heading – and what it will cost. 24 August 2023, Spain, Vinuela: Vegetation makes its way through the drought-ridden earth on the ... More shores of the Viñuela reservoir. The reservoir feeds the tropical crops of Axarquía, such as mangoes and avocados. It is in a phase of desiccation, with no water inflow, but consumption that has led the municipalities of Málaga to impose restrictions on the consumption of drinking water. Photo: Felipe Passolas/dpa (Photo by Felipe Passolas/picture alliance via Getty Images) Climate Action Could Create 85 Million New Jobs by 2030 Yet the argument for climate action extends well beyond cost avoidance. Investments in clean energy yield returns through lower utility costs, increased efficiency, and greater energy independence. The cost of key low-carbon technologies has fallen significantly over the past decade –especially solar power, wind, and batteries – and are expected to decline even further, while the margins that can be made with these technologies on energy markets are promising. Additionally, climate resilience investments tend to generate strong economic returns. According to the World Economic Forum, companies that assess their climate risks and act on them report paybacks of $2 to $19 for every dollar invested, depending on the sector. From flood defenses to water-saving systems, climate adaptation investments regularly deliver returns that outweigh their initial costs. The employment gains are equally compelling. The International Renewable Energy Agency estimated that 85 million new jobs could be created by 2030 in the clean energy transition. This exceeds the 12 million jobs expected to be lost in fossil fuel industries. In a nutshell, investing in cleantech has economic potential. LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA - APRIL 21: Workers install solar panels during the completion phase of a ... More 4-acre solar rooftop atop AltaSea's research and development facility at the Port of Los Angeles, in the San Pedro neighborhood, on April 21, 2023 in Los Angeles, California. The installation will supply enough energy to power AltaSea's 35-acre campus, the country's biggest 'blue economy' tech hub, which is focused on clean oceans, climate resiliency, and clean energy. (Photo by) Inaction Is Not An Option Unmitigated climate change threatens the very pillars of economic stability. It would reduce productivity, increase poverty, and push fragile systems past their limits. The investment case for climate action is clear: it is a fraction of the cost of inaction, it unlocks long-term savings, and it creates new jobs and industries. The missing ingredient is no longer data or models, but political will, courageous companies and financial mobilization at scale. We face a choice: invest now in a cleaner, resilient future – or spend endlessly on the fallout of inaction.
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
Thailand accuses Cambodia of violating hours-old ceasefire
Thailand has accused Cambodia of "deliberately" violating a ceasefire the two countries agreed on Monday to end border clashes that have killed at least 33 people and displaced thousands. It's a shaky start for the ceasefire, which is aimed at bringing an end to five days of bombardment and rocket attacks along their shared border. The Thai military says it stopped firing after midnight, but that it continued to receive gunfire from the Cambodian side "at multiple locations" up until this morning. But Cambodia's defence ministry told the AFP news agency that there had been "no armed clashes" between the two sides since the ceasefire began at midnight. Despite the accusations, meetings between local commanders from both sides took place earlier on Tuesday as part of the ceasefire agreement. They agreed to stop shooting and halt the movement of troops on the frontline. They will also allow each other to collect their dead. Tensions between the South East Asian countries over their century-old disputed border ramped up in May when a Cambodian soldier was killed in a clash. They escalated into a full-scale conflict last week after five Thai soldiers were injured in a landmine explosion. Thailand closed some of its border crossings, expelled the Cambodian ambassador and recalled its own from Phnom Penh. After the two sides exchanged gunfire early last Thursday, Cambodia fired multiple rockets into Thailand, killing several civilians. More civilians died on both sides in the following days, and tens of thousands more were evacuated to shelters. Intense exchanges of fire between the two armies continued up to midnight on Monday, the deadline for the ceasefire, with Thailand launching more air strikes on Cambodian positions. But on Tuesday morning, before Thailand alleged the ceasefire had been violated, Cambodia's Prime Minister Hun Manet said that the "frontlines have eased" since midnight. Under the ceasefire agreement, both sides are meant to pull back their armies and accept some kind of independent monitoring to prevent further clashes. Hun Manet and his Thai counterpart Phumtham Wechayachai had met on Monday in Malaysia in a meeting brokered by its leader Anwar Ibrahim. An outgunned Cambodia had been pushing for a ceasefire and its leader called it a "very good meeting". Thailand, which had initially been reluctant to negotiate, agreed to the talks after US President Donald Trump threatened to halt negotiations over tariffs until Thailand and Cambodia stopped fighting. A dispute going back decades Relations between Thailand and Cambodia took a turn for the worse in 2008 when Cambodia tried to register an 11th Century temple located in the disputed area as a Unesco World Heritage Site - a move that was met with heated protest from Thailand. Over the years there have been sporadic clashes that have seen soldiers and civilians killed on both sides. When tensions ramped up in May, the relationship between the two countries hit its lowest point in more than a decade. In the past two months, both countries have imposed border restrictions on one another. Cambodia banned imports from Thailand such as fruits and vegetables, and stopped importing power and internet services. Both countries have also strengthened their troop presence along the border in recent weeks. Why are Thailand and Cambodia fighting at the border? Thailand and Cambodia agree to 'immediate ceasefire' The fractured friendship behind the fight at the Thailand-Cambodia border
New York Times
6 hours ago
- New York Times
Cease-Fire in Deadly Thailand-Cambodia Conflict Gets Armies' Backing
Senior commanders from the Thai and Cambodian militaries agreed to de-escalate one of the bloodiest border conflicts between their nations in decades on Tuesday, in meetings that were seen as a crucial test of whether a cease-fire deal reached the previous day would bring a lasting end to the fighting. The military talks came a day after the civilian leaders of Thailand and Cambodia, meeting in Malaysia, agreed to a cease-fire that was brokered on Monday by President Trump and Malaysia's prime minister, Anwar Ibrahim. The deal seemed to end, at least for now, days of fighting that killed at least 38 people and displaced hundreds of thousands, although Thailand's army on Tuesday accused Cambodia of continued attacks. The military talks were being closely watched because both armies, particularly Thailand's, are influential political players and were not represented at the discussions in Malaysia. Both Thailand and Cambodia said their commanders had agreed to immediately stop fighting; to refrain from sending more troops to the border area; to strengthen communication on both sides; and to form a working group to ensure that the cease-fire is fully implemented. 'We agreed not to send more troops. That is the key development,' said Lim Menghour, the director general of Cambodia's National Assembly, the lower house of the country's Parliament. Regional commanders from both sides held talks in three separate meetings. One meeting, between commanders of Thailand's Second Army Region and Cambodia's Fourth Military Region, which were involved in the fiercest fighting, was briefly postponed, but officials later confirmed that it had taken place. Mr. Lim Menghour said there was a good atmosphere at those talks, which were held in the Cambodian border town of Os Mach. 'I think if Thailand fully implements the agreed terms in the meeting and resolves the conflict peacefully, the situation will be back to normal pretty soon,' he added. The next talks on the border dispute are set for Monday, when defense ministers from both countries will meet. Malaysia will be an observer at those discussions. The fighting began on Thursday and continued for roughly five days, as Thailand and Cambodia pounded each other with attacks along the disputed border, including airstrikes. On Tuesday morning, in a Cambodian border region where residents had been hearing blasts for days, there was a lull. Cambodian officials said there had been no attacks since the cease-fire took effect at midnight. But Maj. Gen. Winthai Suvaree, a spokesman for Thailand's army, accused Cambodia of violating the cease-fire deal by firing in several areas near the disputed border early on Tuesday. Ms. Maly Socheata rejected those accusations. 'I would like to reassure everyone that Cambodia's troops are now firmly implementing orders and the cease-fire agreement since midnight,' she said. Thailand's acting prime minister, Phumtham Wechayachai, played down the reports of continued fighting, blaming 'undisciplined soldiers' on the Cambodian side. 'We responded without going overboard,' he told reporters. 'When they fired small arms, we fired small arms back. We did not escalate. At the moment, it is considered calm.' Mr. Phumtham also made it clear that the army was central to Thailand's decision-making about the cease-fire. He said his civilian government took the army's advice 'on how we want to negotiate.' 'At the moment, we want the military to take part in talks and make decisions,' he said. Sun Narin contributed reporting from Siem Reap, Cambodia, and Kittiphum Sringammuang from Bangkok.
