Latest news with #F‑16
Barnama
30-07-2025
- Politics
- Barnama
Brokering The Cambodia-Thailand Ceasefire
What did they say about trust being like a vase, which, once broken, will never be the same again? So, do we leave it in tatters, or try to fix it back to form? This could well describe the state of play between Cambodia and Thailand sharing a border which has long been an unruly frontier, where old maps, national pride and political survival intersect. The trust deficit between the two considerably outweighs the cultivated goodwill, leaving no illusion that whatever peace struck on the anvil of diplomacy will be iron clad. Thus, the brokering of a ceasefire between the two following recent clashes is a reminder that diplomacy's true measure lies not in sweeping settlements, but in holding the line against worse outcomes. On July 28, Cambodia and Thailand agreed to halt hostilities from midnight. Meeting in Putrajaya under Malaysia's chairmanship of ASEAN, both leaders accepted an immediate and unconditional ceasefire. The agreement was the product of painstaking, unglamorous but by no means lacklustre facilitation by Malaysia, with the United States playing a consequential, parallel role. President Trump added urgency by warning that tariff negotiations with both countries would not proceed until 'fighting stops.' That truth was tested in late July, when tensions that began simmering in May erupted as Cambodian and Thai troops exchanged fire in disputed territory along the Dangrek mountains. Thanks to the trust shortfall, what began as a familiar border clash escalated sharply when Cambodia deployed multiple launch rocket systems that hit a hospital, among other targets, prompting Thailand to respond with F‑16 strikes, possibly the first time its air force had fired in anger since a brief border war with Laos in 1987. Tens of thousands fled to makeshift camps. The fighting was the most intense in more than a decade. China, present as an observer, lent additional weight to the talks – particularly important for Cambodia, which counts Beijing as its most dependable backer. The optics mattered: the message was that de‑escalation was in everyone's interest, and that Malaysia's convening role was part of a wider diplomatic effort, not an exercise in rivalry. Reaching the ceasefire was never a foregone conclusion as, not surprisingly, the two sides took diametrically opposed approaches to handling the dispute. Phnom Penh sought to internationalise the issue, reviving old appeals to the International Court of Justice and casting itself as the aggrieved party. Bangkok insisted on tackling it bilaterally, out of the global spotlight and far from anything that might invite international arbitration. Neither could be seen to back down. And unlike the clash in 2011, this confrontation played out against a more tangled political backdrop. The feud between Cambodia's strongman Hun Sen and Thailand's Shinawatra family, once firm friends, added an edge that made compromise all the more politically fraught. Into this maelstrom stepped Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, intent on calming the waters. He engaged both Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Manet and Thailand's Acting Prime Minister Phumtham with care, giving each space to air grievances while calibrating the optics: enough publicity to signal progress, but never so much as to box either side in. After all, wiggle room in diplomatic negotiations is an absolute necessity. By bringing the two leaders to Putrajaya, within 24 hours, and offering to coordinate observers, Malaysia showed that an ASEAN chair willing to act and quick on the draw can still shape events. Privileged to have a front row seat to witness history unfolding on the fly the night before, seeing Anwar holding conversations with two phones synchronously with earnestness but a full dose of panache stirred Goosebumps, what more that this came the day after the much vaunted and infamous 'Turun Anwar' rally. To be sure, the meeting in Putrajaya was as much about process as substance. The ceasefire was framed as an initial measure to halt the fighting and stabilise the situation, not even as prelude to dispute resolution. Follow‑up arrangements rely largely on bilateral mechanisms between Cambodia and Thailand, with ASEAN in a supporting role. That was by design. A heavier ASEAN role might have triggered resentment and made the arrangement harder to sustain. But this doesn't preclude Anwar, in his personal capacity, from doing the nudging and cajoling to both parties, more as ASEAN family members than as chair sitting in council. On the formal side, the arrangement represented a midpoint between Bangkok's preference for bilateralism and Phnom Penh's push for wider international involvement. This approach rests on the will and discipline of the two parties where the animus between them makes implementation inherently fraught. The acting Thai prime minister's commitment carries political weight, but sustaining the ceasefire will depend in part on civil–military relations in Bangkok, where the armed forces have long exercised considerable autonomy. On the Cambodian side, Prime Minister Hun Manet faces his own constraints. Barely two years into his premiership, he cannot afford to appear weak on a matter of national pride, his political lineage notwithstanding. Domestic sentiment demands that Cambodia stand firm, leaving little room for compromise, even in the interest of stability. All said, while the crucial role of political leaders is undeniable, a lasting pause will require more than cabinet orders. It will need continued discipline from commanders of both sides on the ground. Anwar stressed that point to members of the ASEAN diplomatic corps during an interface session in Jakarta yesterday, on the sidelines of his state visit to Indonesia. That political reality shapes expectations of what this agreement can achieve. In the aftermath, some commentary focused on the obvious: that it did nothing to resolve the underlying dispute. But that was never the objective. Complaints that ASEAN failed to resolve the dispute swiftly miss the point entirely. There was never any prospect of conjuring fantasy settlements overnight, a standard at which no international body performs any better. The endless navel‑gazing over ASEAN's shortcomings isn't analysis; it's an academic distraction from the work that still lies ahead. For Malaysia, this is not a pursuit in vainglory. The role of ASEAN chair is designed to be facilitative, not proprietorial. The ability to plant the seeds with the prospect of future harvest for peace is reward enough. As in life, so in geopolitics, there are no absolute guarantees. ASEAN works best when the chair is willing to act, not by trying to foist solutions, but by creating the space and opportunity in which they might one day emerge. -- BERNAMA (The views expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not reflect the official policy or position of BERNAMA) BERNAMA provides up-to-date authentic and comprehensive news and information which are disseminated via BERNAMA Wires; BERNAMA TV on Astro 502, unifi TV 631 and MYTV 121 channels and BERNAMA Radio on FM93.9 (Klang Valley), FM107.5 (Johor Bahru), FM107.9 (Kota Kinabalu) and FM100.9 (Kuching) frequencies. Follow us on social media : Facebook : @bernamaofficial, @bernamatv, @bernamaradio Twitter : @ @BernamaTV, @bernamaradio Instagram : @bernamaofficial, @bernamatvofficial, @bernamaradioofficial TikTok : @bernamaofficial
The Hindu
29-07-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Border Fire, Regional Fallout: Thailand, Cambodia, and the Fragility of Peace in Southeast Asia
On 24 July 2025, the long-disputed Thailand–Cambodia border once again erupted into open violence. Cambodian rocket fire reportedly killed Thai civilians and soldiers in Surin Province. In response, Thai F‑16 fighter jets carried out airstrikes near the Ta Muen Thom temple complex, escalating what had been a tense standoff into a full-blown military clash. Within hours, diplomatic relations nosedived—Thailand expelled the Cambodian ambassador, suspended border trade through major checkpoints, and deployed additional troops to reinforce its frontier. From Phnom Penh, Prime Minister Hun Manet condemned the Thai airstrikes as 'unprovoked aggression' and urgently appealed to the United Nations Security Council. Images of bomb craters, wounded villagers, and smouldering fields flashed across Cambodian state television. In Bangkok, the military framed its response as self-defence and insisted Cambodia had violated Thai sovereignty. Yet beyond the rhetoric and the troop movements lies a more concerning truth: this is no ordinary border dispute. It is a symptom of deeper regional instability and a stark warning about the declining capacity of ASEAN to maintain peace among its members. The conflict is rooted in long-standing historical disputes over border demarcation, particularly around temple complexes such as Preah Vihear and Ta Muen Thom. Though the International Court of Justice ruled in Cambodia's favour in 1962 and again in 2013 with respect to Preah Vihear, adjacent areas remain contested. The Ta Muen Thom temple, located in the Dangrek range, is similarly caught in cartographic ambiguity. While clashes in the past were sporadic and localised, the current situation is qualitatively different. Both governments are using the incident to rally nationalist support at home, entrenching positions that make de-escalation more difficult. In Thailand, the crisis coincides with a period of domestic political uncertainty. Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra was suspended just weeks earlier following the leak of a private conversation with Cambodian leaders, raising questions about civilian authority and foreign policy decision-making. The military's prompt retaliation, coupled with the ambassador's expulsion, marks a reassertion of hardline nationalism. In Cambodia, Hun Manet has used the incident to project strength and unity, positioning himself as the custodian of national sovereignty. Both sides are appealing to nationalist sentiments, reinforcing a cycle of confrontation with limited space for dialogue. What is particularly striking is the institutional vacuum into which this conflict has emerged. While ASEAN is yet to convene an emergency summit, appoint a special envoy, or offer a structured mediation process. The bloc's slow response contrasts sharply with the urgency of the situation. Cambodia's turn to the UN for redress is a clear sign of eroding confidence in ASEAN's ability to manage intra-regional disputes. While individual ASEAN members—most notably Indonesia and Singapore—have urged both parties to de-escalate, the regional body appears paralysed. The diplomatic fallout is already taking a toll. Cross-border trade, which supports thousands of livelihoods along the Thai–Cambodian frontier, has come to a halt. The tourism sector, recovering from years of pandemic-induced disruption, now faces renewed cancellations and travel advisories. At the geopolitical level, the crisis opens the door for external actors to play a greater role. China, which maintains strong bilateral ties with both governments, could step in to offer mediation. But such a role is unlikely to be viewed as neutral, particularly in Thailand, where concerns about Chinese influence have intensified in recent years. Meanwhile, Japan and the United States have both expressed concern, raising the prospect of a broader strategic entanglement if the situation worsens. For India, the clash is deeply troubling. As a key strategic partner of ASEAN and an advocate of its centrality in the Indo-Pacific, India has invested heavily in connectivity and trade across Southeast Asia. The India–Myanmar–Thailand Trilateral Highway, for example, hinges on border stability and regional coordination. If ASEAN is unable to fulfil its role as a security anchor, India's own regional engagement could be affected. Moreover, the dispute underscores the importance of effective multilateral institutions. India has always emphasised diplomacy and peaceful dispute resolution—principles that are now under strain in its extended neighbourhood. There is still a narrow window for de-escalation. A ceasefire agreement, ideally brokered through ASEAN's more capable members or with international support, must be prioritised. The Treaty of Amity and Cooperation offers mechanisms such as the High Council for mediation—mechanisms that must be activated. If bilateral efforts fail, a neutral monitoring arrangement under UN or ASEAN auspices could help stabilise the situation. But long-term peace will require more than ceasefires. It will need renewed political will, institutional reform within ASEAN, and a return to diplomacy over spectacle. What is unfolding between Thailand and Cambodia today is more than a frontier skirmish. It is a test of Southeast Asia's ability to preserve peace without descending into hardened nationalism or external dependency. The bullets may have been exchanged along an ancient border, but the real battleground is the future of regional cooperation. ASEAN cannot afford to remain silent. And the region cannot afford another failure. 'This article is part of sponsored content programme.'
India.com
26-07-2025
- Politics
- India.com
Cambodia Pushes For Ceasefire After Deadly Border Skirmishes With Thailand
New Delhi: Cambodia's UN envoy called for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire with Thailand amid deadly border clashes, where both sides have endured escalating fatalities and widespread displacement. During a closed-door UN Security Council session attended by representatives from both nations, Cambodia's UN ambassador, Chhea Keo, emphasised the need for a peaceful resolution: 'Cambodia asked for an immediate ceasefire, unconditionally, and we also call for a peaceful solution to the dispute.' Fierce artillery strikes echoed from Cambodia's border region around Oddar Meanchey on Friday, where officials reported a 70-year-old civilian killed and five others wounded. Thailand's health ministry confirmed at least 15 fatalities on its side, 14 civilians and one soldier, and 46 people injured, including 15 troops. Over 138,000 residents from border areas have been evacuated. The Thai army stated that hostilities resumed around 4 a.m. local time, escalating with Cambodian forces deploying heavy artillery, BM-21 rocket systems, and field weaponry. Thai forces responded with what they termed 'appropriate supporting fire.' By Friday afternoon, Thai Foreign Ministry spokesman Nikorndej Balankura indicated a slight reduction in fighting. He also expressed a willingness to hold talks, potentially facilitated by Malaysia, which currently chairs ASEAN, but noted that no reply had yet been received from Cambodia. Acting Thai Prime Minister Phumtham Wechayachai warned earlier that escalation could lead to full-scale war, although he maintained that the conflict remained contained 'for now.' Both nations accused each other of initiating the violence. Thailand alleged that Cambodia targeted civilian sites, including a hospital and a petrol station. At the same time, Cambodia disputed claims that it began the conflict, pointing out its military disadvantage and reaffirming its call for diplomacy. This latest eruption is a marked escalation in the decades-old territorial dispute along the approximately 800-km shared border. Although a 2013 UN court ruling appeared to resolve much of the disagreement, fresh clashes since May, including the death of a Cambodian soldier, have reignited tensions. In recent hostilities, fighting occurred across six contested zones, including areas around two ancient temples. The conflict escalated as troops and tanks battled for terrain control; Cambodia fired rockets and shells while Thailand mobilised F‑16 jets to strike across the border. In Samraong, Cambodia, just 12 miles from the frontline, families fled with their children after shelling began. 'I live very close to the border. We are scared,' said resident Pro Bak, 41, who was helping his family seek refuge in a nearby Buddhist temple. Cambodia's ceasefire plea and Thailand's cautious openness to talks mark a possible turning point. The international community remains on alert, urging restraint and negotiation before the conflict spirals further.
Time of India
25-07-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
World War III: Thailand–Cambodia border clashes escalate toward war-like situation - South East Asia in turmoil
Thailand–Cambodia border conflict has dangerously escalated, drawing attention from global powers and fueling fears of a potential war in Southeast Asia. As the death toll rises and over 130,000 civilians are evacuated, both countries have ramped up military operations near disputed territories, prompting international calls for de-escalation. With tanks, fighter jets, rocket systems, and artillery in action, what began as a localized skirmish now threatens to destabilize the entire region. Background: What Triggered the Thailand–Cambodia Clashes? Tensions reignited in late May 2025 when a Cambodian soldier was killed near the Chang Bok checkpoint, located in the heavily contested Emerald Triangle region. This remote area—where the borders of Thailand, Cambodia, and Laos converge—has long been a flashpoint for territorial disputes. Explore courses from Top Institutes in Please select course: Select a Course Category Degree Data Science Data Analytics Project Management MBA healthcare Technology Artificial Intelligence CXO Product Management Cybersecurity Digital Marketing Healthcare others Others Leadership PGDM Design Thinking Public Policy MCA Data Science Management Finance Operations Management Skills you'll gain: Data-Driven Decision-Making Strategic Leadership and Transformation Global Business Acumen Comprehensive Business Expertise Duration: 2 Years University of Western Australia UWA Global MBA Starts on Jun 28, 2024 Get Details Despite a brief diplomatic lull, the situation rapidly deteriorated by July 24, when intense gunfire and artillery exchanges erupted near Ta Muen Thom, an ancient Khmer temple located along the border. What followed was a multi-front escalation involving ground troops, tanks, drones, and even airstrikes by Thai F‑16 fighter jets. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 5 Books Warren Buffett Wants You to Read In 2025 Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List Undo Where Are the Clashes Happening? The fiercest battles are occurring across 12 border checkpoints, with both sides accusing each other of violating sovereignty. The most notable flashpoints include: Ta Muen Thom Temple (disputed temple site) Choam-Khansung checkpoint Chong Chom in Surin province (Thailand) Oddar Meanchey and Banteay Meanchey provinces (Cambodia) Thailand–Cambodia clashes began near Prasat Ta Muen Thom temple and quickly spread to other disputed sites like Ta Krabey and Ta Mone Touch. (Source- BBC) Live Events The temple disputes are particularly sensitive due to their cultural significance and historical claims. Both nations have militarized areas around these temples, ignoring repeated diplomatic warnings over the years. Military Escalation: From Skirmish to War-Like Situation Thailand responded to the Cambodian rocket and artillery fire by launching "Operation Yuttha Bodin", a large-scale military counteroffensive involving: F‑16 airstrikes on Cambodian positions Heavy artillery shelling Deployment of tanks and infantry Drone surveillance and air support Meanwhile, Cambodia deployed BM‑21 Grad multiple rocket launchers, drones, and ground troops across key checkpoints. Thai officials accused Cambodian forces of targeting civilian infrastructure, including a hospital and a petrol station—a charge Cambodia denies. Civilian Toll: Over 130,000 Flee Border Zones The human cost is rising. Thai authorities report: 14 civilians dead Dozens injured Over 130,000 evacuated from Surin, Sisaket, Buriram, and Sa Kaeo provinces Cambodia has reported at least one civilian death and over 4,000 people displaced in Oddar Meanchey province, with shelters being set up in border towns. Emergency services in both countries are overwhelmed. Temporary camps are struggling with shortages of food, water, and medical supplies. Thai officials warn that if the fighting intensifies, the number of displaced civilians could double within days. Political Reactions: Diplomatic War Erupts Alongside Military Conflict Thailand's acting Prime Minister Phumtham Wechayachai described the clashes as 'serious border skirmishes' but warned that they 'could develop into war' if not checked immediately. On the other hand, Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Manet has taken a stronger diplomatic stance, accusing Thailand of launching a premeditated attack and calling for an urgent United Nations Security Council (UNSC) meeting. In a move reflecting the severity of the situation: Thailand recalled its ambassador from Phnom Penh Cambodia summoned the Thai envoy for an explanation Both countries filed diplomatic protests with the UN The rhetoric is also being amplified by former leaders. Cambodia's Hun Sen and Thailand's Thaksin Shinawatra—both controversial power brokers—have traded barbs on social media and in public speeches, further inflaming nationalist sentiment. Global Response: ASEAN, UN, and World Powers Urge Calm The growing tensions have alarmed neighboring countries and major world powers: ASEAN chair Malaysia urged 'maximum restraint' and offered to mediate The United States , China , and the European Union have all issued statements supporting peaceful resolution The United Nations is preparing an emergency session to address the dispute Experts warn that without swift international mediation, the conflict may spiral out of control, especially as both militaries are fully mobilized and entrenched. Economic Consequences: Southeast Asia's Stability at Risk The border conflict is already having severe economic fallout: For Cambodia: Tourism has plummeted due to border closures and safety concerns Key border casinos in Poipet and O'Smach are shuttered, causing major revenue losses Trade disruptions are hurting exports and supply chains, especially in agricultural goods For Thailand: Major highways connecting to Cambodia have been sealed Trade in border towns like Aranyaprathet has come to a halt Thai businesses and logistics hubs are reporting delays and security risks Both countries could suffer if foreign investors begin pulling out over geopolitical instability, especially given existing concerns in the region from Myanmar's civil war and South China Sea tensions. Why the Conflict Matters Globally This is not just a local or bilateral issue. Here's why it's being seen as a potential flashpoint in Southeast Asia: Geostrategic Location : The Thailand–Cambodia border sits near major trade and energy routes in the Mekong region. Military Build-Up : With advanced weaponry being used, even minor miscalculations could escalate into full-scale warfare. Refugee Risk : Mass displacement could trigger a regional refugee crisis, spilling into Laos and Vietnam. Tensions Among Aging Leaders : Political egos—particularly those of aging elites like Hun Sen and Thaksin—are adding fuel to the fire. Erosion of ASEAN Unity : The conflict is testing ASEAN's capacity to mediate and maintain regional stability. What Happens Next? While the situation remains volatile, several outcomes are possible: Optimistic Scenario: ASEAN-led negotiations or UN intervention succeeds Ceasefire is brokered with international observers deployed Both sides agree to demilitarize and return to status quo Worst-Case Scenario: Fighting escalates into declared war Broader regional instability ensues Foreign powers are drawn in—either diplomatically or militarily Right now, global attention is focused on preventing the Thailand–Cambodia border conflict from igniting a wider Southeast Asian crisis. The Thailand–Cambodia clashes mark the worst border violence in over a decade, and the situation is dangerously close to spiraling out of control. With heavy military involvement, rising civilian casualties, and political brinkmanship at play, the world watches anxiously. Whether peace prevails or war ignites may depend on what happens in the next few days—and how fast diplomacy can catch up to the gunfire. FAQs: Q1: What caused the Thailand–Cambodia border conflict to escalate in 2025? A Cambodian soldier's death in May 2025 triggered the latest fighting at the disputed border. Q2: How many people have been displaced by the Thailand–Cambodia clashes? Over 130,000 civilians in Thailand and 4,000 in Cambodia have been evacuated due to the violence.
Express Tribune
25-07-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
Thailand declines external mediation, demands direct talks with Cambodia
Thailand has rejected mediation efforts from third countries to end the ongoing conflict with Cambodia, insisting that Phnom Penh cease attacks and resolve the dispute solely through bilateral talks, the Thai Foreign Ministry said on Friday. This follows Thursday's deployment of an F‑16 fighter jet, which bombed a military target in Cambodia after artillery volleys from both sides killed at least 11 civilians in the latest escalation of border clashes. Read: Thai fighter jet bombs Cambodia Moreover, the United States, China and Malaysia—the current chair of the ASEAN regional bloc—have all offered to facilitate dialogue. However, Thai Foreign Ministry spokesperson Nikorndej Balankura told Reuters, 'I don't think we need any mediation from a third country yet.' Bangkok's stance comes amid a full‑blown diplomatic crisis that saw ambassadors expelled and troops reinforced on both sides after a Cambodian soldier was killed in a brief skirmish in May. Thailand has maintained that any resolution must await a complete cessation of hostilities before direct talks can proceed.
