The recent ceasefire between Thailand and Cambodia comes amid coup rumors in Bangkok, Chinese support for Phnom Penh, and Trump's boasts of "bringing peace." Beneath the surface, the border dispute reflects US-China rivalry, ASEAN's militarization, and the proxy battles of an unfolding new Cold War.
Monday, August 18, 2025
Uriel Araujo, Anthropology PhD, is a social scientist specializing in ethnic and religious conflicts, with extensive research on geopolitical dynamics and cultural interactions.
The ink is barely dry on the ceasefire agreement between Thailand and Cambodia, and yet the situation on their contested frontier remains fraught with tension. Thailand - still shaken by rumors of a looming military coup - remains a key US ally. Cambodia, in turn, leans heavily on Beijing for military aid and strategic backing. This has turned what would otherwise be a localized border skirmish into a vivid microcosm of the Second Cold War, complete with proxy alignments, diplomatic maneuvering, and strategic signaling.
The July clashes, some of the fiercest in years, left dozens dead and displaced communities along the border. The territorial disputes - rooted, as they are, in old maps, colonial legacies, and contested temples - are nothing new. One may recall that in 2011, fighting around the Preah Vihear temple briefly brought the two nations to the brink of full-scale war. Yet what makes the present confrontation distinctive is not merely the geography of the dispute but the geopolitical arena in which it unfolds. Southeast Asia has become one of the most militarized regions of the Global South, and the Thai-Cambodian crisis fits neatly into this broader pattern.
Cambodia relies heavily on China. Beijing has poured billions into Cambodian infrastructure, while upgrading the strategically located Ream Naval Base and deepening military cooperation through exercises such as " Golden Dragon". Thailand, on the other hand, remains tied to Washington. The US has long relied on Bangkok as a partner in its Indo-Pacific strategy, frequently hosting military exercises such as Cobra Gold, and remains committed to bolstering Thai defense capabilities. Thus, the border, to some extent, has also become a stage on which the rivalry between China and the US plays out by proxy.
Amid escalating violence in July, Donald Trump - back in the spotlight as a political kingmaker - has boasted of his personal role in "bringing peace." Reportedly, it was indeed a blunt phone call from Trump to Thai leadership that helped pave the way for a ceasefire, after he threatened both countries with tariffs unless they agreed to halt hostilities. Yet this narrative, celebrated in some quarters as evidence of Trump's diplomatic genius, actually obscures far more than it reveals.
Trump's methods - blunt pressure and punitive threats - are hardly about reconciliation. It is about leverage, as usual. Threatening tariffs on both countries' exports amid a fragile regional economy is nothing short of coercive. Be as it may, it worked, apparently, at least in the short term. But in doing so, Trump reaffirmed the pattern whereby Washington uses trade as a cudgel in geopolitical disputes, thereby deepening resentment in the region.
What goes underreported in much of the Western press is how this conflict intersects with the militarization of ASEAN. Defense budgets across Southeast Asia have soared, and joint exercises have become routine. Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia, and others are modernizing their fleets and missile systems at a pace not seen before. As I've argued elsewhere (pertaining to the Indo-Pacific arms race), the proliferation of new missile systems and naval platforms is reshaping the region's security architecture. The Thai-Cambodian border dispute, viewed through this lens, is thus not merely a historical quarrel but a node in the wider militarized chessboard of the Indo-Pacific Region.
In any case, it would of course be misleading to reduce the conflict purely to Great Power competition. Nationalism does play a decisive role. Cambodian leaders have long invoked historical grievances against Thailand to rally public sentiment. Thai elites, for their part, have used the border as a pressure valve amid domestic crises.
So much for the trumpist narrative of a neatly brokered peace. The ceasefire may hold for now, but thus far, none of the underlying dynamics - political instability in Bangkok, Cambodia's dependency on China, the militarization of ASEAN, and US aggressive attempts to preserve hegemony - have been resolved.
One may not help to notice that China, for its part, has taken a markedly different approach than the US. Beijing in fact has publicly urged both sides to reconcile, offering mediation and deeper cooperation within the ASEAN framework. Unlike Washington's punitive threats, Beijing's language of partnership and regional development is more palatable to local governments. No wonder many ASEAN states, even those somewhat wary of China's intentions, find this approach less abrasive.
From a Chinese perspective, maintaining stability in Cambodia, where Beijing has invested heavily, and ensuring that Thailand does not drift fully back into Washington's orbit are key objectives. The Thai-Cambodian conflict, thereby, became a platform for China to signal its willingness to act as a regional stabilizer - a role that stands in sharp contrast to Washington's more confrontational posture.
The Thai-Cambodian border dispute reveals the contours of the Second Cold War. Proxy alignments are evident, and diplomatic maneuvering is equally on display, from Trump's tariff threats to Beijing's reconciliation proposals. And strategic signaling resonates through every move, whether it be military exercises, naval upgrades, or the mere threat of escalation.
Quite overlooked by mainstream coverage is how fragile these ceasefires are. The militarization of ASEAN ensures that future disputes - whether in the South China Sea, the Mekong basin, or along the Thai-Cambodian frontier - will be shaped not only by local grievances but by the gravitational pull of superpower rivalry. This is what the "New Cold War" is about.
To sum it up, the ceasefire announced in Malaysia may buy time, but it does not resolve the fundamental question: can ASEAN countries maintain sovereignty and stability in the shadow of escalating US-China competition? As the Indo-Pacific arms race accelerates, and as domestic political crises in Bangkok and Phnom Penh intertwine with external pressures, the Thai-Cambodian border is less a local dispute than a symbol of the turbulent world order taking shape before our eyes.
Trump may claim victory for "bringing peace." Thus far, however, peace remains provisional at best. The Thai-Cambodian conflict is not over (no conflict ever is now, it seems): it has merely been folded into the larger drama of the New Cold War.