Blurring the Line: Is the Thailand-Cambodia Border Conflict More Than a Land Dispute?

There is a Thai idiom ขนมพอสมกับน้ำยา (pronounced “ka/nom/por/som/gub/nam/ya”), which figuratively means that two sides are both good and evil, and neither is ‘better’ than the other. In the wake of intensified clashes along the Thai-Cambodia border, which had significant repercussions on nearby civilians, the battle now turns to a game of blame—who is responsible for escalating the situation? Beneath the soil that soldiers traverse lie not only landmines, but something far more threatening: a “war of words” constructed by nationalistic pride and personal bias, which breeds mistrust in place of unity.

The countries’ conflict dates back to pre-colonial times, when Cambodia was ruled by the Khmer Empire and Thailand, then called “Siam”, was ruled by the Rattanakosin Kingdom. They stand on a long history of bilateralism, fraught with century-long border disputes, periodic conflicts, and political upheaval. Change was marked by the toppling of the Khmer Empire beginning in 1431 by Siamese forces, who in the next four centuries, seized control of land along the northwestern region of Cambodia. In a decisive move to prevent decimation, Cambodia’s King Norodom sought a French protectorate in 1863.

During this period, a map was drawn by the French, which outlined the border surrounding the Preah Vihear temple. The map placed the temple on Cambodia’s land, thus deviating from earlier agreements to follow the watershed line of the Dangrek Mountains.

Since the map was drawn, the temple has remained largely under Cambodian control. However, it has also been intermittently governed by Thailand throughout the 1900s until the involvement of the International Court of Justice, which ruled in 1962 that the area surrounding Preah Vihear belonged to Cambodia. Regardless of who’s controlling it, the temple serves as a cultural symbol and religious place of worship for both Thais and Cambodians along the border.

Hence, Cambodia’s registration of the temple as a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 2008 deeply angered Thailand, who feared this action would legitimize Cambodia’s control over the area. Driven by national sentiment, tensions intensified, Cambodia closed off its border, and on May 28 2025, gunfire along the border killed a Cambodian soldier. 

Hopes for de-escalation waned following the leaked audio of a phone call between Hun Sen, Cambodia’s president of the Senate, and Paetongtarn Shinawatra, then Thailand’s Prime Minister. The conversation was a clear compromise of national security—a legal violation which led to Paetongtarn’s probation on July 1, 2025, and eventual dismissal from office on August 29. Taking her place is Anutin Charnvirakul, who, as the new prime minister, marks Thailand’s third prime minister in two years. The peace accord signed on October 26, 2025 at the ASEAN Summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, envisaged regional peace, though skepticism remains as political instability in Thailand may undermine future attempts at peace.

Within the disputed area, more than 300,000 people were displaced, and thousands lost their jobs. Since July 24, 2025, an additional 787,000 Cambodian workers have been forced to return home from Thailand. Without incomes, these individuals look to the government for solutions, yet no established system of unemployment benefits exists. While unemployment and a sharp decline in remittances will plague Cambodia, the new labor shortage will cause wages to rise in Thailand.

There are also significant economic costs. Due to the mass return of migrants, international tourists will be unable to cross the border. The result? A heavy punch to the regional revenue stream, with an estimated ฿3 billion per month (approximately $129 million CAD) loss in tourism revenue. As hotels and restaurants remain vacant, local businesses will lose profit, and families facing a drop in household salaries will suffer beyond the economic consequences. In the long term, these losses in profit and income can fuel psychological distress such as anxiety, insecurity, and shame.

Both governments blame the other. Thailand accuses Cambodia of firing into civilian areas and using drones to conduct unlawful surveillance on Thai troops, while Cambodia accuses Thailand of using cluster munitions while masking itself as a country committed to peace. When a landmine along the Thai scouting area maimed a Thai soldier, Thailand blamed Cambodia. However, Cambodia claimed that the Thai entered Cambodia first, and may even have planted the landmine themselves to frame Cambodia.

Nationalist pride may play a larger role than imagined. The Thai majority promotes an image of wealth, strength, and superiority in comparison to their neighbors. A consensus of Cambodian resentment towards the Thai sense of superiority translates to hate and provocation on both sides via social platforms. In fact, some derogatory phrases used by netizens include “Scambodia” and “CampuChina” from Thailand, as well as “Khmer glory” and “#ThailandOpenedFire” from Cambodia. Moreover, Cambodians at the Thai border have boycotted Thai products, forcing retailers to lower prices. Boycotted goods have been substituted by their eastern neighbor, Vietnam, creating a system where goods are sold at a low price point while input is purchased at a high price point.

In truth, neither side wants to perpetuate the conflict. In an interview by The Momentum, Da, a Cambodian factory worker, reveals “we [Cambodians] have never seen the Thais as our enemies”. From the Thai perspective, people also don’t want politics to undermine the established relationships with their neighbors. Orachorn Phasuk, mother of Ammarin Phasuk, a Thai soldier who died in a border clash in late July, said she “hopes for peace for everyone’s sake”.

In essence, social consensus shaped by discursive hegemony overshadows logical reasoning. The border conflict is little about a fight for resources. Instead, it is a “symbolic conflict” where both sides seek to enhance their image of sovereignty. Shaped by biases, people’s viewpoints on who’s at fault are based on belief, not truth. Neither country should claim that its people are ‘better’ than the other, nor should nationalistic pride or government agendas hinder our shared sense of humanity.

For centuries, political leaders in respective countries have viewed Preah Vihear and its history not as a connector but as a means of dispute. This has been showcased throughout 2003 to 2013 when Hun Sen used the temple dispute to promote nationalism and rally support. Nevertheless, Preah Vihear’s cultural and religious symbolism transcends political divides and thus should not be taken away.

On a regional scale, the border conflict highlights ASEAN’s limitations in conflict-prevention, exemplified by the organization’s failure to solve the Burmese crisis. Their failure challenges the world’s long-standing perception of ASEAN as an agent of stability and peace. Perhaps ASEAN–and to an extent, peace agreements in general–are more fragile and complex than we thought. Specifically, when influenced by political incentives at home, individuals overlook the long-term significance of international alliances. Without internal change, negotiations stall, and even decades-long relationships can be fractured. When superficial solutions and insincere pretenses uphold “peace”, we question whether ‘true peace’ can ever exist.

Edited by Adele Torrington

Featured image: A young monk standing by an entrance at the Preah Vihear temple. Photo by S. Ken is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0.