INTERNATIONAL
ASEAN centrality does not allow truth to be a casualty of any border conflict in Thailand and Cambodia
Digital disinformation threatens Thai-Cambodian peace efforts as ASEAN urges truth-based diplomacy to preserve regional stability. - Astro AWANI
WHEN disinformation infiltrates diplomacy, peace itself becomes the first casualty. The recent flare-ups of misinformation surrounding the Thailand–Cambodia border underscore a deeper danger — that unverified claims, viral videos, and nationalist commentaries can undo months of quiet diplomacy, and the goodwill painstakingly cultivated by ASEAN.
AI Brief
Writing on the Thai PBS web portal, one of the most reliable news platforms in the world, Kavi Chongkittavorn, a Thai, has done everyone an excellent service by writing objectively.
He warned against allowing online lies to derail the fragile reconciliation process between Bangkok and Phnom Penh.
What makes this moment especially precarious is the convergence of misinformation with national pride.
Both Thailand and Cambodia are proud nations with deep historical memories of conflict and coexistence.
Their border demarcation disputes — from the Preah Vihear temple controversy to overlapping claims of land and waters — have always been as much about identity as geography.
Yet, in today’s social-media age, those old wounds are being reopened by digital distortions and viral falsehoods that travel faster than diplomacy can react.
The New Battlespace: Social Media as the Fifth Border
Unlike the physical frontier, which can be fenced and patrolled, the new battlespace is the online space. In this borderless terrain, rumours, doctored images, and anonymous accounts provoke outrage and suspicion.
Kavi rightly warned that false narratives spread on these platforms not only deepen hostility but can reignite military skirmishes or domestic pressure that tie the hands of diplomats.
In both countries, online nationalism has become a potent force. Domestic commentators amplify minor incidents into evidence of aggression, often demanding immediate retaliation.
These digital amplifiers make it politically dangerous for any government to exercise restraint, even when both sides know that restraint is the wiser course.
What we are witnessing, then, is not just a territorial dispute but an epistemic crisis — a struggle over truth itself.
For ASEAN, this poses a profound challenge. If facts become contested and diplomacy becomes hostage to the digital mob, regional peace architecture loses credibility. ASEAN’s much-vaunted “centrality” cannot function in an environment where disinformation corrodes the very foundation of dialogue.
Malaysia’s Mediation and the Blame Game
As Malaysia holds the ASEAN Chair in 2025, Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim has consistently promoted dialogue and de-escalation among member states.
Kuala Lumpur provided platforms for Thai and Cambodian officials to meet discreetly, enabling the restoration of communication channels that had broken down amid heightened border tensions earlier in the year.
It is important to note that Malaysia’s official term as ASEAN Chair will end on December 31, 2025. However, a ceremonial handover to the Philippines was already completed in Kuala Lumpur on October 28, 2025.
This early handover ensures institutional continuity and gives Manila ample time to prepare for its 2026 chairmanship. Yet, until the end of December, Malaysia remains responsible for steering ASEAN’s agenda and maintaining regional stability during this transitional phase.
It was none other than President Donald Trump who, having witnessed the ferocity of the border conflict that displaced 140,000 people in Thailand and another 160,000 Cambodians in a matter of days between July 24 and July 28, 2025, threatened to slap both countries with ever-higher tariffs if they did not immediately stop their armed exchanges. Their only way out was to cease hostilities, with Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim as the facilitator and Malaysia as the host to both sides.
Any suggestions that Anwar instigated or encouraged U.S. intervention in the border clashes are patently false. On the contrary, his quiet mediation prevented both governments from being drawn into a more profound crisis that could have destabilized ASEAN’s regional architecture and invited external interference on even harsher terms.
Truth, Trust, and ASEAN Centrality
The larger issue is that ASEAN centrality cannot thrive without truth and trust. The institution’s strength has always rested on the credibility of its process — quiet diplomacy, mutual respect, and the shared commitment to peace. These norms mean little if truth itself is degraded by digital disinformation.
In this context, Kavi’s call for vigilance is more than a media appeal — it is a strategic necessity. Peace depends on information integrity. If either side’s population is misled into believing it is a victim of aggression, no leader can risk appearing weak. The cycle of outrage can spiral into confrontation before verification even occurs.
ASEAN has long faced criticism for being slow or overly cautious. Yet the bloc’s enduring stability stems precisely from its privileging verification over reaction. “Talking while walking,” as Prime Minister of Singapore Lawrence Wong once put it, may seem incremental, but it ensures that dialogue never collapses entirely.
Digital Diplomacy and Collective Responsibility
The Thai Cambodian case offers a lesson for the entire region. In an era where social media shapes perception faster than diplomacy can respond, ASEAN must strengthen its information resilience. This means developing joint rapid-response mechanisms to counter false narratives, investing in fact-checking collaborations among member states, and training diplomats in digital literacy to pre-empt escalation driven by misinformation.
Moreover, regional media outlets must adhere to the highest journalistic standards. Freedom of expression does not absolve the responsibility to report accurately. It is time to revisit the idea of an ASEAN media compact — one that enshrines ethical reporting, especially during interstate disputes.
Malaysia, as ASEAN Chair, has already proposed the “ASEAN Strategic Communications and Media Cooperation Initiative,” aimed at synchronising truthful reporting on regional affairs. This initiative, if fully operationalised, could become ASEAN’s firewall against digital disinformation.
The Real Test of Centrality
The test of ASEAN centrality is not how quickly it resolves a dispute, but how effectively it preserves regional cohesion amid internal tensions. The fact that Thailand and Cambodia continue to engage through ASEAN mechanisms — rather than unilateral escalation — is proof that the institution still works.
Critics who expect Malaysia or Anwar to impose peace misunderstand ASEAN’s essence. The organisation’s centrality lies in keeping all parties within a shared process, preventing conflicts from falling into the orbit of great-power manipulation or nationalist fury. It is precisely this quiet persistence that has made ASEAN one of the world’s most durable regional frameworks.
Anwar Ibrahim’s stewardship should therefore be seen not as a failure to act but as a refusal to let falsehoods or external blame games hijack ASEAN. His approach aligns with Malaysia’s long-standing principle: regional peace must be built on mutual respect, not mutual recrimination.
Conclusion: Truth as ASEAN’s Last Line of Defence
The Thailand–Cambodia border dispute is a test of truth as much as of territory. It will determine whether ASEAN can remain central in an age when facts themselves are contested. For Malaysia, leading ASEAN through this challenge means upholding the principle that truth cannot be negotiated, even when peace is.
Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim cannot — and should not — be blamed for the structural forces of misinformation that plague modern diplomacy. What he can do —and has done —is ensure that ASEAN remains a platform where truth and peace are pursued together.
If ASEAN allows truth to become a casualty, centrality will be meaningless. But suppose it can protect the truth amidst the noise. In that case, the region will not only preserve peace between Thailand and Cambodia — it will also reaffirm ASEAN’s enduring promise: unity in diversity, anchored in trust and safeguarded by truth.
Phar Kim Beng, PhD, is Professor of ASEAN Studies and Director of the Institute of Internationaliation and ASEAN Studies (IINTAS) at the International Islamic University Malaysia.
Luthfy Hamzah is Senior Research Fellow at IINTAS and a specialist in trade, political economy, and strategic diplomacy in Northeast Asia.
** The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the position of Astro AWANI.
Your gateway to global news, insights, and stories that matter.
AI Brief
- Viral falsehoods and online nationalism are inflaming Thai-Cambodian tensions, risking renewed conflict and obstructing reconciliation efforts.
- Malaysia, under PM Anwar Ibrahim, facilitated a ceasefire and discreet dialogue, reinforcing ASEAN's role as a stabilising force amid digital chaos.
- ASEAN's credibility hinges on countering disinformation; initiatives like the ASEAN Strategic Communications and Media Cooperation aim to protect regional peace through information integrity.
Writing on the Thai PBS web portal, one of the most reliable news platforms in the world, Kavi Chongkittavorn, a Thai, has done everyone an excellent service by writing objectively.
He warned against allowing online lies to derail the fragile reconciliation process between Bangkok and Phnom Penh.
What makes this moment especially precarious is the convergence of misinformation with national pride.
Both Thailand and Cambodia are proud nations with deep historical memories of conflict and coexistence.
Their border demarcation disputes — from the Preah Vihear temple controversy to overlapping claims of land and waters — have always been as much about identity as geography.
Yet, in today’s social-media age, those old wounds are being reopened by digital distortions and viral falsehoods that travel faster than diplomacy can react.
The New Battlespace: Social Media as the Fifth Border
Unlike the physical frontier, which can be fenced and patrolled, the new battlespace is the online space. In this borderless terrain, rumours, doctored images, and anonymous accounts provoke outrage and suspicion.
Kavi rightly warned that false narratives spread on these platforms not only deepen hostility but can reignite military skirmishes or domestic pressure that tie the hands of diplomats.
In both countries, online nationalism has become a potent force. Domestic commentators amplify minor incidents into evidence of aggression, often demanding immediate retaliation.
These digital amplifiers make it politically dangerous for any government to exercise restraint, even when both sides know that restraint is the wiser course.
What we are witnessing, then, is not just a territorial dispute but an epistemic crisis — a struggle over truth itself.
For ASEAN, this poses a profound challenge. If facts become contested and diplomacy becomes hostage to the digital mob, regional peace architecture loses credibility. ASEAN’s much-vaunted “centrality” cannot function in an environment where disinformation corrodes the very foundation of dialogue.
Malaysia’s Mediation and the Blame Game
As Malaysia holds the ASEAN Chair in 2025, Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim has consistently promoted dialogue and de-escalation among member states.
Kuala Lumpur provided platforms for Thai and Cambodian officials to meet discreetly, enabling the restoration of communication channels that had broken down amid heightened border tensions earlier in the year.
It is important to note that Malaysia’s official term as ASEAN Chair will end on December 31, 2025. However, a ceremonial handover to the Philippines was already completed in Kuala Lumpur on October 28, 2025.
This early handover ensures institutional continuity and gives Manila ample time to prepare for its 2026 chairmanship. Yet, until the end of December, Malaysia remains responsible for steering ASEAN’s agenda and maintaining regional stability during this transitional phase.
It was none other than President Donald Trump who, having witnessed the ferocity of the border conflict that displaced 140,000 people in Thailand and another 160,000 Cambodians in a matter of days between July 24 and July 28, 2025, threatened to slap both countries with ever-higher tariffs if they did not immediately stop their armed exchanges. Their only way out was to cease hostilities, with Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim as the facilitator and Malaysia as the host to both sides.
Any suggestions that Anwar instigated or encouraged U.S. intervention in the border clashes are patently false. On the contrary, his quiet mediation prevented both governments from being drawn into a more profound crisis that could have destabilized ASEAN’s regional architecture and invited external interference on even harsher terms.
Truth, Trust, and ASEAN Centrality
The larger issue is that ASEAN centrality cannot thrive without truth and trust. The institution’s strength has always rested on the credibility of its process — quiet diplomacy, mutual respect, and the shared commitment to peace. These norms mean little if truth itself is degraded by digital disinformation.
In this context, Kavi’s call for vigilance is more than a media appeal — it is a strategic necessity. Peace depends on information integrity. If either side’s population is misled into believing it is a victim of aggression, no leader can risk appearing weak. The cycle of outrage can spiral into confrontation before verification even occurs.
ASEAN has long faced criticism for being slow or overly cautious. Yet the bloc’s enduring stability stems precisely from its privileging verification over reaction. “Talking while walking,” as Prime Minister of Singapore Lawrence Wong once put it, may seem incremental, but it ensures that dialogue never collapses entirely.
Digital Diplomacy and Collective Responsibility
The Thai Cambodian case offers a lesson for the entire region. In an era where social media shapes perception faster than diplomacy can respond, ASEAN must strengthen its information resilience. This means developing joint rapid-response mechanisms to counter false narratives, investing in fact-checking collaborations among member states, and training diplomats in digital literacy to pre-empt escalation driven by misinformation.
Moreover, regional media outlets must adhere to the highest journalistic standards. Freedom of expression does not absolve the responsibility to report accurately. It is time to revisit the idea of an ASEAN media compact — one that enshrines ethical reporting, especially during interstate disputes.
Malaysia, as ASEAN Chair, has already proposed the “ASEAN Strategic Communications and Media Cooperation Initiative,” aimed at synchronising truthful reporting on regional affairs. This initiative, if fully operationalised, could become ASEAN’s firewall against digital disinformation.
The Real Test of Centrality
The test of ASEAN centrality is not how quickly it resolves a dispute, but how effectively it preserves regional cohesion amid internal tensions. The fact that Thailand and Cambodia continue to engage through ASEAN mechanisms — rather than unilateral escalation — is proof that the institution still works.
Critics who expect Malaysia or Anwar to impose peace misunderstand ASEAN’s essence. The organisation’s centrality lies in keeping all parties within a shared process, preventing conflicts from falling into the orbit of great-power manipulation or nationalist fury. It is precisely this quiet persistence that has made ASEAN one of the world’s most durable regional frameworks.
Anwar Ibrahim’s stewardship should therefore be seen not as a failure to act but as a refusal to let falsehoods or external blame games hijack ASEAN. His approach aligns with Malaysia’s long-standing principle: regional peace must be built on mutual respect, not mutual recrimination.
Conclusion: Truth as ASEAN’s Last Line of Defence
The Thailand–Cambodia border dispute is a test of truth as much as of territory. It will determine whether ASEAN can remain central in an age when facts themselves are contested. For Malaysia, leading ASEAN through this challenge means upholding the principle that truth cannot be negotiated, even when peace is.
Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim cannot — and should not — be blamed for the structural forces of misinformation that plague modern diplomacy. What he can do —and has done —is ensure that ASEAN remains a platform where truth and peace are pursued together.
If ASEAN allows truth to become a casualty, centrality will be meaningless. But suppose it can protect the truth amidst the noise. In that case, the region will not only preserve peace between Thailand and Cambodia — it will also reaffirm ASEAN’s enduring promise: unity in diversity, anchored in trust and safeguarded by truth.
Phar Kim Beng, PhD, is Professor of ASEAN Studies and Director of the Institute of Internationaliation and ASEAN Studies (IINTAS) at the International Islamic University Malaysia.
Luthfy Hamzah is Senior Research Fellow at IINTAS and a specialist in trade, political economy, and strategic diplomacy in Northeast Asia.
** The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the position of Astro AWANI.
Your gateway to global news, insights, and stories that matter.