ASEAN’s role in the Cambodia-Thailand conflict: Can it facilitate peace?

Despite the region’s commitment to peace and stability, the organisation’s influence in this dispute is limited by its principles of non-interference and the deep mistrust between the two nations.

At a seminar held in Phnom Penh on July 17, “Cambodia-Thailand Relations: Towards Peace and a Stable Neighbourhood and Region”, experts discussed ASEAN’s potential role in resolving the conflict, despite the obstacles it faces.

The ASEAN Challenge: Non-Interference and Trust Issues

The Cambodia-Thailand conflict, exacerbated by the deadly clash between forces on May 28 and subsequent border restrictions, underscores the difficulties ASEAN faces in intervening in bilateral disputes.

While ASEAN has long championed regional peace, its principle of non-interference in member states' affairs severely limits its ability to mediate in this ongoing crisis.

One key point raised during the seminar was the role of the ASEAN secretary-general.

The current secretary-general, Kao Kim Hourn, a Cambodian national, faces a significant trust barrier from Thailand, which complicates his ability to facilitate mediation. Previous attempts at mediation within ASEAN have similarly faltered.

For instance, when the conflict between Cambodia and Thailand escalated in 2008, the then-ASEAN secretary-general, Surin Pitsuwan, a Thai, was seen as biased by the Cambodian side, leading to a lack of confidence in ASEAN's neutral role.

This lack of trust between the parties makes it difficult for ASEAN to take on a mediating role.

Aun Chhengpor, a policy researcher at Future Forum, observed that “ASEAN as an institution is unlikely to play a direct role, but ASEAN as a platform can still offer a space for potential negotiation”.

Chhengpor emphasised that, while ASEAN cannot mediate unless both countries ask for help, it can still serve as a venue for informal discussions.

Independent strategic consultant Po Sovinda echoed this sentiment, stating, “ASEAN’s role largely depends on both nations asking for mediation”.

He noted that while the ASEAN chair can encourage dialogue, both Cambodia and Thailand have not formally requested ASEAN’s assistance, making its involvement uncertain.

Past Attempts and ASEAN's Weaknesses

ASEAN’s mediation attempts in past conflicts have been limited, and the organisation has often struggled to maintain neutrality in times of heightened tension.

The ASEAN Troika, an informal mediation body within the bloc, has historically been ineffective, only successfully intervening once during Cambodia's internal conflict in 1997.

“The only time the Troika worked effectively was when Prime Minister Hun Sen agreed to allow them to come in,” said Pou Sothirak, distinguished senior Advisor at CCRS.

“Without the cooperation of the government, such mechanisms cannot work."

This historical precedent highlights the challenge ASEAN faces in getting both sides to agree on its role in the current conflict.

Furthermore, Sothirak pointed out that ASEAN’s credibility is further undermined by the political dynamics in the region.

“ASEAN is like the parent trying to mediate between a couple who aren’t listening. The couple is getting angry with each other, but ASEAN cannot force either side to listen,” he said, referencing the difficulty of getting both Cambodia and Thailand to cooperate in a meaningful way.

International Mediation and ASEAN’s Role

Sovinda brought another critical dimension to the conversation, focusing on the role of international institutions in resolving the conflict.

Drawing attention to the significance of the 1962 ICJ ruling, Sovinda emphasised that although Cambodia’s sovereignty over Preah Vihear was reaffirmed, the ICJ did not make a clear ruling on the surrounding 4.6 square kilometres, which has become a flashpoint for tension.

“The historical legacy is significant,” Sovinda explained.

“We must understand that the colonial treaties still influence the current border disputes,” he added.

He noted that the rising nationalism in both countries has made it more difficult to find common ground, as both nations continue to rally domestic support for their respective territorial claims.

Sovinda also addressed the role of ASEAN in mediating the dispute, expressing his scepticism about the regional organisation’s ability to resolve the issue effectively.

“ASEAN’s credibility in managing this conflict is questionable,” he stated, adding that both Thailand and Cambodia have not sought ASEAN’s involvement.

While acknowledging ASEAN’s potential role in confidence-building, Sovinda underscored that “this problem can only be solved with political will from both sides”.

He suggested that other international actors, particularly Japan, could play a more effective role in mediation, given the trust both countries have in Japan.

“Let’s give ASEAN a chance, but we must also look to other actors like Japan to help bring both sides to the table,” he said.

The Path Forward: ASEAN as a Diplomatic Platform

Despite these limitations, there are potential pathways for ASEAN to play a role in de-escalating tensions and facilitating dialogue.

Sothirak suggested that ASEAN’s primary role could be as a platform for private diplomacy, where discreet discussions could take place away from public scrutiny.

“It’s about creating a space for both countries to reconcile their differences without inflaming tensions,” he said, noting that informal, behind-the-scenes diplomacy may be more effective than public mediation.

Chhengpor agreed that ASEAN’s influence could be more powerful in an unofficial capacity, acting as a venue for dialogue rather than direct intervention.

He pointed out that the lack of military escalation in recent weeks is a positive sign, but the economic fallout from the border closure and trade restrictions continues to affect both countries.

“The priority must be to avoid full-blown armed conflict. Any mechanism — whether bilateral, multilateral or even through the ICJ — should aim to bring both sides back to the table,” Chhengpor stated.

Bilateral Solutions and the Role of ASEAN’s Chair

Prime Minister Hun Manet's call for the unconditional reopening of the border was seen as a crucial step toward de-escalation.

“Opening the border could relieve economic pressure on both sides and create the space needed for talks,” Sovinda observed.

However, he noted that both governments must first create a conducive environment for dialogue before any meaningful negotiations can take place.

Sothirak highlighted that the military’s role in inflaming tensions must be addressed, as the continued military presence on both sides has made the situation more difficult to resolve.

“Until both governments agree to de-escalate militarily, any diplomatic solution will struggle to succeed,” he said.

The focus must remain on building trust, reducing inflammatory rhetoric and prioritising peaceful conflict resolution.

The key to peace lies in the willingness of both nations to prioritise diplomacy and engage in meaningful negotiations.

“Diplomacy is not about immediate solutions; it’s about creating the space for dialogue. Both Cambodia and Thailand must take that step if peace is to be achieved,” Sothirak stated.

ASEAN Chair Anwar

Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim held separate June 6 phone discussions with Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Manet and Thai Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra regarding the ongoing border issues.

As the current ASEAN chair, he urged both nations to exercise restraint, de-escalate tensions and pursue a peaceful and comprehensive resolution to their border dispute.

He expressed Malaysia's readiness to facilitate dialogue and provide necessary assistance in achieving a peaceful settlement.

During his conversations, Anwar noted that both Cambodian and Thai leaders had conveyed their commitment to resolving the issue through negotiations and diplomatic channels.

He expressed appreciation for their understanding in handling the matter in a “sober and restrained” manner, emphasising the shared interest in cooling down tensions.

The discussions come amidst heightened border sensitivities between Cambodia and Thailand, with both sides asserting sovereign rights over contested areas.

Cambodia has indicated its intention to refer certain disputed areas to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to seek a permanent solution.

Both prime ministers reportedly agreed to continue engagement through existing mechanisms to address the border issues.

Prime Minister Paetongtarn was later suspended from her position, however, over a leaked telephone conversation with Senate president Hun Sen.

Hong Raksmey

The Phnom Penh Post

Asia New Network