The Guardian view on Thailand and Cambodia: a Trump-brokered truce falls apart | Editorial
When the hastily constructed FIFA World Peace Prize was awarded to Donald Trump last week, the ceasefire in the Thai-Cambodia border conflict was among the achievements cited. Mr Trump also boasted of ending the war in the Democratic Republic of Congo. He boasts of having ended eight conflicts and has just had the American Institute of Peace renamed in his honor.
However, the truce between Thailand and Cambodia has already collapsed. Half a million residents along the border have fled renewed fighting and civilians are among the 27 people killed. Meanwhile, in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, at least 200,000 people have fled the advance of Rwandan-backed M23 rebels – days after a peace deal was signed in Washington.
On Friday, Mr. Trump said both sides had agreed to lay down their arms again. But they disagreed and the fighting continued all weekend. Bangkok reluctantly agreed to the July deal because the United States was using tariffs as leverage. Phnom Penh, in a weaker position, was happier that she interceded. Thailand then accused Cambodia – with strong evidence – of planting new landmines in border areas, injuring several Thai soldiers. The conflict resumed in early December, with each side blaming the other.
The territorial dispute between Thailand and Cambodia dates back more than a century and centers on disagreements over colonial-era maps. The two countries have already clashed over an ancient temple and experienced turmoil over who can lay claim to other aspects of heritage. Thailand is also tackling the proliferation of online scam crime centers in Cambodia. What gives the disagreement such power, however, is that in both countries nationalist sentiment has been weaponized for national ends. In Cambodia, where longtime leader Hun Sen gave way to his son Hun Manet in a dynastic dictatorship, stoking anger against one’s neighbor helps legitimize a regime that has little to offer its people.
In Thailand, the long-running clash between powerful military and royalist elites and politician Thaksin Shinawatra, his family and his proxies has been decisive. In August, a court removed his daughter Paetongtarn Shinawatra as prime minister for failing to protect the country’s interests, after a recording of her discussing the border dispute with Hun Sen was leaked. She is seen calling him “uncle”, promising to “take care of it” and disparaging a key military commander – sparking a storm of outrage. This played into political opponents’ claims that the Shinawatra family was happy to sell out the country’s interests for personal gain.
The interim prime minister appointed in her place courted popularity by giving free rein to the military in her stated goal of crippling the Cambodian army. As promised elections approach, the clashes distract from the government’s woes – including a poor response to deadly floods – and position the military as national champions.
Mr. Trump, who predicted he could resolve the renewed conflict “fairly quickly,” wants instant victories and photo opportunities. Leaders who fear alienating him may shake his hand and make promises when pushed. But while pressure from powerful external actors can help push parties in regional conflicts to the negotiating table, there is a big difference between quick solutions and lasting peace – as airstrikes and rocket attacks along the Thailand-Cambodia border demonstrate.
