On Thai and Cambodian conflict: For bombs to stop mutual blame, first must be dropped

Bangkok and Phnom Penh can still prevent this conflict from worsening, but only if both sides stop trading accusations long enough to allow neutral verification. Escalation thrives in the fog of competing narratives. Peace requires clarity.

The Kuala Lumpur Peace Accord did not cause the breakdown. The Accord is still among the most concrete, well-structured, and durable diplomatic frameworks ASEAN has created in recent years.

It provides clear procedures, mechanisms, and communication channels. It offers an established path for de-escalation. And it was designed precisely for moments like this — when emotions are high, the facts are murky, and the political stakes are rising.

The real problem is underusing its verification mechanisms. Without swift, neutral fact-finding, both sides rely on their own military reports, which soon become competing truths.

This danger is compounded by domestic pressures in Thailand. Barely a week before the border clash, Southern Thailand was devastated by historic floods that left Hat Yai almost entirely underwater.

Disaster management agencies are still overwhelmed, and the government is under intense scrutiny for its crisis response. With a General Election widely expected in March or April 2026, public pressure has reached an unprecedented level.

In this climate, even a minor border incident can escalate. When Thai soldiers die, the government faces strong demands to act before facts are clear.

Cambodia is also navigating a fragile environment. Borderlands in Southeast Asia are porous spaces shaped by smugglers, local militias, and non-traditional actors. Such groups may seek to provoke incidents for economic gain or political mischief.

This means Phnom Penh must approach every incident with caution, recognising that not all actions may originate from central command. In moments of heightened tension, misinterpretations are easy to make, and manipulation is possible.

The mutual recriminations that followed the December 8 clash reflect this danger; Thailand maintains it was fired upon first, while Cambodia insists the opposite. In the absence of a neutral, authoritative account, these claims quickly harden into diplomatic positions.

This dynamic makes de-escalation much harder. When each side believes it is responding defensively, retaliation feels justified. When both feel wronged, compromise feels politically costly.

Such cycles are how small incidents escalate into prolonged confrontations.

ASEAN’s Observatory Team must be empowered. Its defence attachés already have the expertise and regional access needed for rapid fact-finding.

The Team’s mandate is too limited. It cannot deploy fast or investigate thoroughly enough, making its findings too weak to influence decisions.

If the Observatory Team had been granted greater authority under the Kuala Lumpur Peace Accord, it could have deployed within hours of the clash.

The Team could have inspected the area, interviewed field commanders, and checked ballistic evidence. It could have shared findings with both capitals, providing a basis for dialogue.

Verification does not bring back lives lost, but it ensures leaders act on facts, not emotion. It stops misinformation from driving military actions and discourages escalation for political reasons.

A stronger verification regime protects both sides. Thailand avoids reacting to internal reports during public anxiety. Cambodia gets a credible way to prove its denials.

Verification lets both governments de-escalate without seeming weak.

This is not a call for new treaties. The Kuala Lumpur Peace Accord provides the necessary structure. ASEAN must now empower its mechanisms, focusing on rapid deployment and trusted military communication.

Strengthen the Observatory Team immediately. Reinforce this move with ASEAN’s broader security structure—including the ASEAN Regional Forum and the ASEAN Defence Ministers’ Meeting mechanisms—to add needed political weight to its findings.

ASEAN’s credibility is on the line. The organisation proves itself by managing conflict, not avoiding it. If ASEAN does nothing, the region risks deepening disputes, losing diplomatic capital, and threatening stability.

The situation is further exacerbated by Thailand’s domestic conditions. The floods in the south have traumatised communities and strained administrative capacity. More than 80 per cent of Hat Yai was inundated, and the recovery will take months.

In this atmosphere, any border provocation can become a national crisis.

Cambodia must recognise this as a sensitive time. Any error or manipulation could spark a strong response from Bangkok.

Both sides need to stop blaming each other. Only then can they verify, and only then can diplomacy resume. Bangkok and Phnom Penh are not destined for conflict. But without neutral facts, they risk drifting into one. The Kuala Lumpur Peace Accord provides them with a concrete framework for a pullback, but its mechanisms must be trusted and used.

Stopping the war begins with stopping the blame and prioritising prompt, impartial verification. Establishing truth together is the essential first step toward 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.