INTERNATIONAL
Delay in reaching a Thai–Cambodian ceasefire is better for all
ASEAN urges patience as a rushed Thai-Cambodian ceasefire risks collapse without proper verification, security guarantees and de-escalation. - Astro AWANI
THE failure to secure an immediate ceasefire between Thailand and Cambodia after recent ASEAN talks is seen as a diplomatic setback. This view has spread too quickly.
This reading is not just superficial. It is dangerous. In protracted, emotionally charged border conflicts, a rushed ceasefire can be worse than none at all.
Waiting, when done for a good reason, can mean the difference between lasting peace and a quick ceasefire that falls apart.
The Thai–Cambodian conflict is not spontaneous. It results from historical grievances, disputed colonial-era borders, domestic political pressure, and persistent security mistrust.
These problems do not yield to hurried declarations made for political optics. They require careful sequencing, technical clarity, and credible enforcement.
This is precisely why the absence of an immediate ceasefire should not be equated with diplomatic failure.
A ceasefire announced prematurely—without agreement on verification, force disengagement, de-mining, and accountability—invites a rapid breakdown. History has shown this repeatedly.
When ceasefires collapse, parties do not return to earlier conditions. Instead, suspicion grows, military stances harden, and the human cost rises.
In this context, Thailand’s insistence on clearer conditions should not be dismissed as obstructionism.
Nor should Cambodia’s demand for respect for sovereignty be caricatured as intransigence.
These positions are informed by lessons from past failures: deals made under pressure lacked sufficient depth. The result was not peace, but the same problems repeated.
Here, ASEAN’s patience becomes a strategic asset, not a liability.
ASEAN’s consensus-driven diplomacy is often criticised as slow, yet speed is not the same as effectiveness.
ASEAN’s strength lies in providing space for de-escalation and avoiding forced, unready outcomes for member states.
In crises of this nature, coercing consensus can be as destabilising as military escalation itself.
A key element in talks is the proposed ASEAN monitoring team. This group may include defence attachés and military representatives from member states.
A well-designed mechanism could build confidence between parties.
But rushing this is where things can go wrong.
Defence attachés are not symbolic. They represent sovereign states, often in uniform or quasi-uniform dress.
Having them in tense border areas raises significant political, legal, and security issues.
If ASEAN sends an Observatory Team, the security of defence attachés must be beyond question.
No professional military officer can be expected to operate in an environment where rules of engagement are unclear, lines of responsibility are blurred, or protection is contingent solely on goodwill.
This is not a procedural footnote—it is central to credibility.
An observatory team without strong security is either ineffective or, worse, a hostage to escalation.
Any incident involving harm to ASEAN defence personnel would not only derail the ceasefire process but also fundamentally damage ASEAN’s institutional authority and cohesion.
Therefore, we need to wait to answer key questions: Who is responsible for the observers? Who do they report to?
What happens if hostilities resume in their vicinity? Are there agreed extraction protocols?
Are legal immunities and communication safeguards in place? These are essential, not luxuries.
A rushed ceasefire that sends observers into hostile, undefined areas is irresponsible. It risks ASEAN’s
reputation and political fallout for member states.
More importantly, it would deter member states' future willingness to contribute personnel to peace-monitoring missions, hollowing out ASEAN’s long-term capacity for conflict management.
It is also vital that commanders on the ground respect the ceasefire, not just leaders in capitals.
This requires time. Military de-escalation is not achieved by press statements alone.
It takes synchronised withdrawals, verified force moves, and bans on provocative actions.
Without these, even a single miscalculation can reignite violence.
Critics often argue that civilians cannot afford a delay.
This is true, but civilians also cannot afford repeated ceasefire failures.
Each collapse displaces families, destroys livelihoods, and deepens trauma. Nearly 1 million people are now displaced on both sides.
A ceasefire that is sustainable for months is preferable to one that quickly collapses.
A ceasefire that lasts months is better than one that fails on first contact.
ASEAN’s role, therefore, is not to act as a pressure cooker but as a stabiliser.
By allowing talks to return to technical and bilateral channels—like border or military committees—ASEAN helps make deals more workable.
This is diplomacy grounded in realism, not ritual.
Delay also reduces the push of militarised nationalism.
Time lets domestic audiences adjust expectations. This makes compromise less costly for leaders.
Rushed agreements trigger backlash as leaders appear to concede under pressure.
The real failure is not a delayed ceasefire, but announcing peace without adequate preparation.
In diplomacy and engineering, structures built too quickly often collapse.
A carefully prepared ceasefire—one that protects observers, reassures militaries, and earns public trust—shows strategic maturity, not weakness.
For Thailand, Cambodia, and ASEAN, patience today is the only path to lasting peace.
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.
** 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.
This reading is not just superficial. It is dangerous. In protracted, emotionally charged border conflicts, a rushed ceasefire can be worse than none at all.
Waiting, when done for a good reason, can mean the difference between lasting peace and a quick ceasefire that falls apart.
The Thai–Cambodian conflict is not spontaneous. It results from historical grievances, disputed colonial-era borders, domestic political pressure, and persistent security mistrust.
These problems do not yield to hurried declarations made for political optics. They require careful sequencing, technical clarity, and credible enforcement.
This is precisely why the absence of an immediate ceasefire should not be equated with diplomatic failure.
A ceasefire announced prematurely—without agreement on verification, force disengagement, de-mining, and accountability—invites a rapid breakdown. History has shown this repeatedly.
When ceasefires collapse, parties do not return to earlier conditions. Instead, suspicion grows, military stances harden, and the human cost rises.
In this context, Thailand’s insistence on clearer conditions should not be dismissed as obstructionism.
Nor should Cambodia’s demand for respect for sovereignty be caricatured as intransigence.
These positions are informed by lessons from past failures: deals made under pressure lacked sufficient depth. The result was not peace, but the same problems repeated.
Here, ASEAN’s patience becomes a strategic asset, not a liability.
ASEAN’s consensus-driven diplomacy is often criticised as slow, yet speed is not the same as effectiveness.
ASEAN’s strength lies in providing space for de-escalation and avoiding forced, unready outcomes for member states.
In crises of this nature, coercing consensus can be as destabilising as military escalation itself.
A key element in talks is the proposed ASEAN monitoring team. This group may include defence attachés and military representatives from member states.
A well-designed mechanism could build confidence between parties.
But rushing this is where things can go wrong.
Defence attachés are not symbolic. They represent sovereign states, often in uniform or quasi-uniform dress.
Having them in tense border areas raises significant political, legal, and security issues.
If ASEAN sends an Observatory Team, the security of defence attachés must be beyond question.
No professional military officer can be expected to operate in an environment where rules of engagement are unclear, lines of responsibility are blurred, or protection is contingent solely on goodwill.
This is not a procedural footnote—it is central to credibility.
An observatory team without strong security is either ineffective or, worse, a hostage to escalation.
Any incident involving harm to ASEAN defence personnel would not only derail the ceasefire process but also fundamentally damage ASEAN’s institutional authority and cohesion.
Therefore, we need to wait to answer key questions: Who is responsible for the observers? Who do they report to?
What happens if hostilities resume in their vicinity? Are there agreed extraction protocols?
Are legal immunities and communication safeguards in place? These are essential, not luxuries.
A rushed ceasefire that sends observers into hostile, undefined areas is irresponsible. It risks ASEAN’s
reputation and political fallout for member states.
More importantly, it would deter member states' future willingness to contribute personnel to peace-monitoring missions, hollowing out ASEAN’s long-term capacity for conflict management.
It is also vital that commanders on the ground respect the ceasefire, not just leaders in capitals.
This requires time. Military de-escalation is not achieved by press statements alone.
It takes synchronised withdrawals, verified force moves, and bans on provocative actions.
Without these, even a single miscalculation can reignite violence.
Critics often argue that civilians cannot afford a delay.
This is true, but civilians also cannot afford repeated ceasefire failures.
Each collapse displaces families, destroys livelihoods, and deepens trauma. Nearly 1 million people are now displaced on both sides.
A ceasefire that is sustainable for months is preferable to one that quickly collapses.
A ceasefire that lasts months is better than one that fails on first contact.
ASEAN’s role, therefore, is not to act as a pressure cooker but as a stabiliser.
By allowing talks to return to technical and bilateral channels—like border or military committees—ASEAN helps make deals more workable.
This is diplomacy grounded in realism, not ritual.
Delay also reduces the push of militarised nationalism.
Time lets domestic audiences adjust expectations. This makes compromise less costly for leaders.
Rushed agreements trigger backlash as leaders appear to concede under pressure.
The real failure is not a delayed ceasefire, but announcing peace without adequate preparation.
In diplomacy and engineering, structures built too quickly often collapse.
A carefully prepared ceasefire—one that protects observers, reassures militaries, and earns public trust—shows strategic maturity, not weakness.
For Thailand, Cambodia, and ASEAN, patience today is the only path to lasting peace.
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.
** 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.