Thailand, Cambodia to deploy ceasefire monitors despite deadlock over captured soldiers
The first meeting of the General Border Committee concluded after four days of talks in the Malaysian capital, Kuala Lumpur, with a focus on ensuring the full implementation of the ceasefire brokered by Malaysia on July 28.
Dozens of people were killed and over 260,000 displaced on both sides of the Thai-Cambodian border, when fighting began after a land mine explosion along the border wounded five Thai soldiers.
According to a joint statement from the committee, each country will set up its own interim observer team comprising defence officials from the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and coordinated by the bloc's annual chair Malaysia, pending the deployment of a formal ASEAN observer mission. The interim teams will operate within their respective borders and work closely with local military authorities.
The main meeting Thursday was chaired by Cambodian Defence Minister Gen. Tea Seiha and Thailand's Deputy Defence Minister Gen. Natthaphon Nakpanit. Malaysian Defence Minister Mohamed Khaled Nordin, along with representatives from the U.S. and China, attended as observers.
U.S. Ambassador to Malaysia Edgard D. Kagan said after the meeting that the outcome was an important milestone.
'The U.S. believes this is an important step. However it's important to recognise this is only a step. The goal here is a durable sustainable ceasefire, one that is able to be accepted and enforced by both sides,' he told reporters. He said the U.S. would work closely with Malaysia and ASEAN to monitor the truce.
The July 28 ceasefire followed economic pressure from U.S. President Donald Trump, who had warned the warring nations that the U.S. would not conclude trade deals with them if the fighting persisted. Washington lowered tariffs on goods from the two countries from 36% to 19% on August 1.
However, tensions persisted as each country accused the other of violating the agreements and organised tours of the former battle areas for foreign diplomats and other observers to highlight damage allegedly caused by the other side.
The two countries also continued to accuse each other of having violated international humanitarian laws with attacks on civilians and the use of illegal weapons.
While both sides reaffirmed commitments to halt hostilities, freeze troop movement and avoid provocations, the issue of the 18 Cambodian soldiers captured just hours after the ceasefire took effect remains a sticking point. The joint statement did not directly mention them but it noted that the captives should be "immediately released and repatriated after the cessation of active hostilities.' It didn't clarify iwhether this refers to a formal end to the conflict.
Cambodia had accused Thailand of mistreating the captured men. Two wounded members of the 20-man Cambodian group were repatriated on Friday.
Thai authorities, however, called the group 'prisoners of war' and said they would only be freed and repatriated following an end to the conflict.
The Thai Foreign Ministry said in a separate statement Thursday that the 18 prisoners have been treated in full compliance with international humanitarian law. It said members of the International Committee of the Red Cross had visited them on Tuesday at their detention facility, and that the men were in good health and without any injury.
Cambodia and Thailand have clashed in the past over their 800-kilometre (500-mile) border. 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.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
5 hours ago
- Business Standard
India should weigh benefits of Russian oil after US tariff hike: Banerjee
India should consider whether the cheap oil imports from Russia are 'worth it' after the Trump administration announced an additional 25 per cent tariff on Indian goods, Nobel laureate Abhijit Banerjee has said. Last week, US President Donald Trump signed an executive order, slapping an additional 25 per cent levy on India for New Delhi's purchases of Russian oil, bringing the total duties to 50 per cent -- among the highest imposed by the US on any country in the world. The additional 25 per cent duty will come into effect on August 27. "We need to think hard about whether Russian oil imports are worth it and then go back to the US to say that, you know, will they take it (tariff) off, if we stop importing Russian oil," Banerjee told PTI on the sidelines of an event organised by BML Munjal University. Since the steep tariffs are likely to hit the USD 27 billion of non-exempt exports that India does to the US, there has been chatter around stopping or curtailing oil imports from Russia. "It is not crazy to think about it. At a 25 per cent tariff, some of our exports are already not competitive, so maybe 50 per cent (tariff) does not matter," the eminent economist said. India is the largest importer of Russian crude, purchasing 1.6 million barrels per day in July. However, it has not placed any orders for August and September, mainly because the discounts that initially encouraged Indian refiners to import oil from the Black Sea have decreased to about USD 2 per barrel. In terms of volume, India imported 88 million tonnes from Russia in FY25, out of the total shipment of 245 million tonnes. With such a minimal price advantage compared to other internationally available oil, Indian refiners did not place any orders for August and September. Oil companies typically secure import contracts about two months in advance, meaning the supplies for August and September were arranged before Trump's August 7 announcement of higher tariffs. The bilateral trade deal between the US and India has been stuck over the US demand for greater access to India's agricultural and dairy market. Asked if India should lift curbs on investments from China, Banerjee said, "Maybe we should combine that with trade negotiations with China". "I think it is a good moment to do it. The Chinese also need to think of how they will deal with the US, and what leverage points they have," Banerjee added. Following the Galwan clash in 2020, India took a hard stance on China and its companies operating in the country. Under Press Note 3 of 2020, the government has made its prior approval mandatory for foreign investments from countries that share land borders with India. These countries are China, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Bhutan, Nepal and Afghanistan. Following the decision, FDI proposals from these countries need government approval for investments in any sector in India. Asked whether India should join the ASEAN trading block, he said, "Maybe, I think we need to. I think China is much more important than ASEAN". Responding to a question on how he sees the Indian economy doing this year amid geopolitical tensions and trade uncertainties, Banerjee said, "Not as good as we expected". He pointed out that the middle class is actually hurting, and for the past few years, private investments have also not picked up. "Companies like TCS are not hiring, the salary of IT employees is not increasing... These are all issues we have not dealt with, and we are sitting on them, so we need to kind of embrace the fact," he said.
The Hindu
8 hours ago
- The Hindu
Indian-ASEAN officials to meet beginning August 11 for ASEAN Trade in Goods Agreement review
As India braces for the impact of U.S. tariffs of 25% that went into effect from August 7, the government is seeking to shore up other trade negotiations, including with ASEAN countries beginning Monday (August 11, 2025) in New Delhi. A delegation of the 10-nation ASEAN, or the Association of South East Asian Nations, will hold talks with Commerce Ministry officials from August 11-14, sources confirmed, for the next round of talks on a review of the ASEAN-India Trade in Goods Agreement (AITIGA). The talks come two months after Commerce and Industries Minister Piyush Goyal called the 2009 agreement 'silly' as it gave India's Asian competitors easy access to its markets, a comment that led to speculation that India was planning to pull out of the agreement. The comment also caused some outrage amongst ASEAN members, as he referred to them as the 'B-team of China', referring to India's concerns over Chinese goods flooding the market via these countries. However, in July, after a meeting between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Malaysian PM Anwar Ibrahim, who is chairing the ASEAN Summit this year, as well as a meeting between Mr. Goyal and Malaysian Minister of Investment, Trade & Industry Tzafrul Aziz, the two sides agreed to 'fast-track' the AITIGA review to be completed by the end of this year. In addition, officials are preparing for a possible visit by Mr. Modi to Kuala Lumpur for the ASEAN-India Summit and East Asia Summit, at the end of October. On Friday, Mr. Ibrahim announced that he 'looks forward to welcoming' ASEAN leaders and dialogue partners, including United States President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping, although China normally attends ASEAN Summits at the level of Premier. The push for a quick end to AITIGA review talks, amongst a number of other trade agreement negotiations the government is pursuing with the European Union, Australia and New Zealand, has been given further impetus by the slapping of 25% additional penalties on India by the U.S. last week. Although the government still hopes to continue negotiations with the U.S. for a free trade agreement, it is studying the impact of the tariffs, particularly as its export rivals in Asia, especially ASEAN countries, have received lower rates from the U.S., of around 19%. Government sources and ASEAN diplomats said that although nine rounds of talks in the past year with ASEAN officials have not produced a breakthrough yet, they are hopeful of some movement this week. 'There has been very little headway so far in reviewing the agreement with ASEAN. We are trying to address the fact that, under the existing deal, our imports have grown far in excess of our exports to these countries. A good deal needs to have balance,' a source told The Hindu. Data with the Ministry of Commerce and Industry show the trade balance between India and the ASEAN grouping has been turning increasingly unfavourable for India over the years. In 2017-18, the earliest year for which the Ministry has made data available, India's exports to the ASEAN countries stood at $34.2 billion while imports from the ASEAN countries were $47.1 billion, leading to a trade deficit of $12.9 billion. As of 2024-25, India's exports to the ASEAN countries grew at an average annual rate of 1.7%, to $39 billion. Imports, on the other hand, grew at 7.5% on average every year, to $84.2 billion by 2024-25. The trade deficit swelled to $45.2 billion last year. Apart from the 'rules of origin' issue vis-à-vis Chinese goods, India has also raised the inequality in tariff lines opened, where India opened up about 71% of its lines, while ASEAN countries offered considerably less, including Indonesia at just 41%. ASEAN countries comprising Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam also led the effort for the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), a 15-nation FTA, from which India walked out in 2019.
Mint
8 hours ago
- Mint
Trump's tariffs won't solve US chip-making dilemma
US President Donald Trump's chip-tariff regime could disrupt the global electronics trade and send prices of all kinds of goods higher. One thing it appears unlikely to do: bring advanced chip-making roaring back in the U.S. Trump last week threatened a 100% tariff on 'chips and semiconductors," but offered an exemption. Companies that commit to 'build in the U.S." won't have to pay the duty, according to Trump. While vague, that appears logical on its face. If the point of the tariffs is to cajole companies into doing more of their work in the U.S., they ought to get a reprieve when they do that. One issue is that all of the world's big chip companies are already investing in U.S. production, encouraged in part by subsidies doled out by the prior administration. Meanwhile, other big technology companies are likely to invest in areas other than advanced chip production to get their own exemptions. Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing is building chip factories north of Phoenix that are part of $165 billion of U.S. investments. South Korea's Samsung Electronics is building a project in Texas worth $40 billion. The list goes on. It seems likely those chip manufacturers will win exemptions on tariffs thanks to the size of these investments. But if so, the latest tariffs won't incentivize them to keep adding to their U.S. operations. If anything, the incentive will be to make just enough U.S. investment to appease politicians, then import whatever else is needed, especially considering the substantially higher cost of manufacturing in the U.S. Those higher U.S. costs have been a core issue for foreign chip-makers that the tariffs won't alleviate. TSMC told investors last month that it expects the higher cost of its U.S. fabrication to weigh down companywide gross margins by 2 to 3 percentage points over the next few years. And those fabs aren't even first in line for the company's most expensive and most advanced technology. TSMC's Arizona facilities are currently producing chips with the company's N4 process technology—two generations older than the N2 process the company is about to launch in its Taiwan fabs. TSMC may be just one company, but advanced chip making is a game only few can play. TSMC, Samsung and Intel are the only chip makers in the world that can produce at the most technically advanced process nodes. And Intel is struggling for survival—having slashed its workforce and capital spending plans to conserve cash as it tries to catch up to TSMC. Trump's recent broadside against Intel's Malaysian-born chief executive adds even more uncertainty to the chip giant's outlook. Counterintuitively, chip tariffs might end up having a more dramatic effect on electronics companies that don't make chips, because they have so much to lose from tariffs on vital imported components. Apple's tariff exemption—secured through pledges for $600 billion of investments over the next four years—saved the company from costs that could have undermined its U.S. business. Its peers—at least those with deep pockets—will likely aim for the same tariff-free treatment. If the goal is to spur investment in U.S. manufacturing generally, this might make sense. But if the aim of chip tariffs was to bring more advanced chip manufacturing to the U.S., these pledges are hardly silver bullets. Apple's U.S. investments do support domestic advanced chip-making: The company is the first and largest customer of TSMC's factory in Arizona and is working with Samsung to devise chip-making technology in Texas, among other efforts. But Apple is also spending big on server manufacturing, expanding its data centers and adding to its campus in Austin, Texas—all activities that have less bearing on the domestic chip industry. It is also notable that much of what Apple is doing was already in progress before the tariff threat. Chief Executive Tim Cook said in 2022 during a joint press conference with President Joe Biden that Apple would use TSMC's Arizona chips. Now that Apple has a tariff exemption, the tariffs provide no nudge to do more. What is more, U.S.-based manufacturing will still come at a premium, and someone will have to cover the price. 'The higher cost of tariffs and U.S. production will eventually be shared across U.S. consumers and different parts of the supply chain," Bernstein Research analysts wrote in a report Thursday. There remain good reasons for chip makers to expand in the U.S., of course. The companies have tapped grant money under 2022's Chips Act to increase their U.S. manufacturing. They also have access to tax credits for purchases of chip-making equipment that increased in Trump's 'big, beautiful bill" last month. Many companies also see value in locating more of their supply chains in the U.S. to avoid the kind of shock they experienced during the Covid-19 pandemic. There is a geopolitical calculation at play, too, that has little to do with tariffs: A more aggressive Chinese posture toward Taiwan, a widening of conflicts in the Middle East, or any number of other potential political disruptions all give companies reasons to want more of their semiconductor supply chain close to home. Those factors have been, and will continue to be, the main drivers of chip investment in the U.S.—not tariffs.
