Latest news with #border crisis
Malay Mail
3 days ago
- Business
- Malay Mail
Hun Sen or Hun Manet: Thailand holds all the cards against the duo — Phar Kim Beng
JULY 27 — The border crisis between Thailand and Cambodia has laid bare the illusory nature of Cambodia's political transition. Far from fading into the background, Hun Sen has reclaimed the national stage, steering Phnom Penh's response with an iron grip. Rather than acting as an elder advisor, Hun Sen is the central figure directing Cambodia's strategy, eclipsing his son, Prime Minister Hun Manet, in both authority and visibility. Publicly accusing Thailand of provocations, Hun Sen has reasserted himself as Cambodia's top decision-maker, revealing that the much-touted generational shift was largely cosmetic. While Cambodia's statecraft remains highly personalized and centralized, Thailand presents a stark contrast: an institutionalized system capable of calibrating its response across multiple layers of governance. In this unfolding conflict, Thailand holds the advantage—not just militarily, but diplomatically and economically as well. Thailand's military capabilities significantly outpace those of Cambodia. With better-trained forces, advanced weaponry, air dominance, and superior logistics, Thailand maintains the upper hand in any potential escalation. Cambodia's border units may be fierce and motivated, but they are no match for Thailand's coordinated defense infrastructure. Beyond the battlefield, Thailand commands a stronger position in international diplomacy. As a long-standing and respected member of ASEAN, Thailand enjoys credibility in regional and global forums. In contrast, Cambodia is increasingly viewed as dependent on external patrons, especially China, and as a country whose governance is undermined by opaque leadership and economic entanglement with illicit digital operations. Even Beijing, while publicly urging restraint, may prefer Bangkok's institutional stability over Hun Sen's unpredictable behavior. The economic disparity between the two nations further tilts the scales. Thailand's economy is more diversified, more resilient, and more integrated into regional supply chains. It possesses the capacity to weather shocks, both diplomatic and financial. Cambodia's economy, by comparison, remains fragile and vulnerable, heavily reliant on tourism, garment exports, and, increasingly, dark digital scams proliferating along the border with Thailand. These scam syndicates not only distort Cambodia's economic reputation but also entrench illicit networks that feed insecurity, corruption, and cross-border tensions. Thailand's strength lies not just in its capabilities, but in its restraint. Even when faced with armed resistance, Bangkok relies on institutional decision-making through its foreign ministry, defense establishment, and national security apparatus. This allows it to manage crises with measured responses, maintaining credibility while avoiding unnecessary escalation. Cambodia, on the other hand, suffers from a lack of diplomatic coherence, especially with the unclear balance of power between Hun Sen and Hun Manet. This ambiguity in leadership is a critical weakness. Hun Manet may hold the title of Prime Minister, but he has not been allowed to lead with full authority. Hun Sen's public resurgence in the current crisis diminishes his son's standing both domestically and internationally. For Thailand and other regional actors, it is unclear beyond Hun Sen, who else to engage—raising doubts about a quick and swift end to the war let alone be able to have a ceasefire with Cambodia that can hold. As and when Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim brokered a cease between the two countries on July 25 2025, it broke down in less than an hour after 12 PM. This suggested the lack of any stability and direction in Cambodia since it was Hun Manet who made the announcement that a ceasefire had been established only to witness its own sudden end. The result is a Cambodia that appears more divided and volatile, while Thailand can act with strategic patience. Bangkok does not need to force a quick resolution. Time, regional sentiment, and diplomatic momentum are already on its side. Thailand's decision-makers understand that sustainable advantage lies not in immediate confrontation, but in leveraging regional mechanisms and narratives that position Bangkok as the more responsible actor. Hun Sen's return may project strength in the short term, but it undermines the credibility of Cambodia's political evolution. Ironically this is why Thailand cannot attack Cambodia with total vehemence since Bangkok risks creating a serious power vacuum in Phnom Penh. By denying his son the space to lead, Hun Sen, who is the President of the Cambodian Senate, signals to ASEAN and the broader international community that real change has not taken root. This perception, once formed, is difficult to undo. Hun Manet's authority as the real Prime Minister has diminished totally despite being an alumni and a four star general once trained by West Point Military Academy of the US. Ultimately, Thailand holds the cards because it plays the long game to erode Hun Sen first while hoping that Hun Manet can step into the shows of the father in future. With stronger institutions, a credible military, and more trust from regional actors, Thailand does not need to provoke Cambodia. It merely needs to weaken it from laying mines along the 817 KM borders which they share and preventing Hun Sen from resorting to any long range artilerries to bomb Bangkok. Unfortunately, Hun Sen has made the thread before. Although he is equally aware that this must be the red line that Cambodia must not cross. If it does, the dynasty of Hun Sen risks being obliterated. As things stand, Thailand simply needs to remain composed, knowing that Cambodia's volatility only strengthens Bangkok's position. In this border crisis, it is not a contest between Hun Sen and Hun Manet—it is a contest between centralized personalism and institutional maturity. And on all fronts, Thailand prevails. ** Phar Kim Beng, PhD, is Professor of ASEAN Studies at the International Islamic University of Malaysia (IIUM) and the Director of the Institute of Internationalization and ASEAN Studies (IINTAS). ** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
Telegraph
20-07-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
How the Afghan crisis became Starmer's latest migrant headache
Sir Keir Starmer could be forgiven for quietly cursing his luck. Late on Thursday 10 July, as he stood next to Emmanuel Macron, the Prime Minister must have felt he was finally getting somewhere on illegal migration. The announcement of a returns agreement with France, albeit one whose limited scope attracted criticism, was meant to be the moment the Government began to shift the narrative on small boats. Yet, just over 12 hours later, Downing Street was scrambling to respond to a very different border crisis, as news filtered through that the lid was about to be lifted on a secret Afghan resettlement scheme. Just over a mile away at the High Court, Mr Justice Chamberlain had ruled that a two-year gagging order, which banned the media from referring to the programme in any way, would finally be lifted the following Tuesday. His judgment sparked a frantic 100-hour dash to activate contingency plans in Whitehall, as ministers braced for the public fallout. Defence officials had avoided telling many of the nearly 20,000 people affected by the leak that they were on the list. They feared the news might spread and bring the data breach to the attention of the Taliban. All of that changed last Friday morning when 'break glass' emergency plans were activated and officials started getting in touch with thousands of victims to warn them that the resettlement scheme was about to go public. Mandarins at the Ministry of Defence (MoD) stayed through the night as they worked speedily to dole out security advice and open up lines of communication, while defence ministers held calls across Whitehall to co-ordinate the response. John Healey, the Defence Secretary, and Luke Pollard, the Armed Forces Minister, were on the bureaucratic front line throughout the weekend, staying in the office until past midnight on Sunday as officials raced against time. David Lammy's Foreign Office was also called in to help, setting up a 24/7 email and phone helpline for Afghans worried about their security. As the clock ticked over into Monday, advisers suddenly realised that they faced another obstacle to their plans, this time in the form of Parliament's arcane rules. Tuesday had been set aside in the Commons calendar for a Tory 'opposition day' – one of 20 such dates throughout the year when opposition parties get to take control of the order paper and dictate the subjects that MPs debate. As a result there were no Government statements scheduled for that day, despite the fact that Mr Healey would need to update Parliament on the disclosure of the resettlement scheme once the super-injunction was lifted. The unique impasse, which Whitehall sources said was unprecedented, meant that Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the Commons Speaker, and Kemi Badenoch, the Tory leader, had to be brought into the loop so that they could make time. At midday, the gagging order formally ended and The Telegraph and other media organisations who had challenged the injunction were finally able to disclose the jaw-dropping details and scale of the scheme. The Defence Secretary rose to his feet 40 minutes later to address a quietened Commons. 'Today I am announcing to the House a change in Government policy. I am closing that resettlement route, disclosing the data loss, and confirming that the court order was lifted at 12 noon today,' he solemnly declared. 'It has been deeply uncomfortable to be constrained from reporting to this House. No Government wishes to withhold information from the British public, parliamentarians or the press in this manner.' Mr Healey had barely sat down before the political recriminations began in earnest, with both Labour and Reform laying the blame firmly at the Tories' door. The revelations also set off a circular firing squad within the Conservative Party as ex-Cabinet ministers briefed that they had objected to the scheme, but were overruled after the MoD used 'emotional blackmail' to force the plan through. Sir Ben Wallace, the former defence secretary who applied for the injunction, came out fighting in an article for The Telegraph in which he said he made 'no apology' for actions which had saved the lives of Afghans who served alongside British soldiers. His successor, Sir Grant Shapps, who extended the gagging order just weeks before last year's general election, tried to shift the blame to Labour by insisting he was 'surprised' the new Government had kept it in place for 'quite so long'. Downing Street was 'pretty gobsmacked' by the comments, according to sources, not least because after entering office Mr Healey had swiftly ordered a review of the scheme which ultimately led to the judge overturning the super-injunction. Reform UK, meanwhile, leapt on the scandal to attack senior Tory Right-wingers, particularly Robert Jenrick, who represent the biggest threat to Nigel Farage's attempts to peel off further Right-wing voters. Zia Yusuf, the former Reform chairman who now heads up its Doge unit, fired off a series of posts on X accusing Mr Jenrick of lying about his involvement in the scheme, and attacking Suella Braverman, who was home secretary at the time. His outburst was notable as it was the first time that Mr Farage's party had openly attacked current leaders on the Tory Right, with whom it would probably need to form a coalition if it failed to secure a majority at the next election. As the initial fury over the scandal turned to questions about what happened next, it was Labour which faced the trickiest dilemma as it tried to assuage public anger over a scandal that it inherited from the Conservatives. The bad headlines continued at the weekend, including The Telegraph's revelations that Afghan migrants arriving under the resettlement programme had brought as many as 22 family members to the UK with them. Those revelations will heap pressure on Sir Keir and Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, who have come under fire over a surge in small boat arrivals, which are up 50 per cent on last year. At the same time, Downing Street is facing the prospect of a rebellion from Left-wing backbenchers over its attempts to bring down net migration by curbing the number of people who are arriving legally in Britain on work visas. Parliament heads off for its summer recess on Tuesday and – with Labour MPs on the laxest, one-line whip for attendance next week – many have already returned to their constituencies to recharge their batteries. By the time they return in September, there will be new crises and controversies. But for an administration that will increasingly come to be defined by its record on immigration, the consequences of the Afghan scandal are profound.
South China Morning Post
28-05-2025
- General
- South China Morning Post
Ringleader gets 10 years after Indian family froze to death on US-Canada border
More than three years after a family of four from India froze to death while trying to enter the US along a remote stretch of the Canadian border in a blizzard, the convicted ringleader of an international human smuggling plot was sentenced in Minnesota on Wednesday to 10 years in prison. Federal prosecutors had recommended nearly 20 years for Harshkumar Ramanlal Patel, and nearly 11 years for the driver who was supposed to pick them up, Steve Anthony Shand, who got 6½ years on Wednesday with two years' supervised release. 'The crime in many respects is extraordinary because it did result in the unimaginable death of four individuals, including two children,' US District Judge John Tunheim said. 'These were deaths that were clearly avoidable.' Patel's defence lawyer, Thomas Leinenweber, told the court before sentencing that Patel maintains his innocence and argued he was no more than a 'low man on the totem pole'. He asked for time served, 18 months. But acting US Attorney Lisa Kirkpatrick said Patel exploited the migrants' hopes for a better life in America, out of his own greed. 'We should make no mistake, it was the defendant's greed that set in motion the facts that bring us here today,' she said.
