A Thai-Cambodian peace that must not be broken into pieces

The urgency of the moment is self-evident. More than one hundred thirty thousand people have been displaced, heavy artillery has darkened the skies along the border, and military posturing has escalated into deadly exchanges. Yet, in a rare act of political maturity and regional solidarity, Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim of Malaysia brought Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Manet and Thailand’s Acting Prime Minister Phumtham Wechayachai to the same table. The special meeting, co-facilitated by both the United States and China, resulted in a joint commitment to halt all hostilities from midnight onwards.

That ceasefire—announced with global backing and ASEAN consensus—is not merely symbolic. It carries the weight of a carefully sequenced response that now demands strict adherence.

Military commanders along the border, including Thailand’s Regional Commands based in the northeast and Cambodia’s military units stationed in the west, are scheduled to meet directly to operationalize the ceasefire on the ground. This is not a routine exchange of pleasantries. It is the vital nerve centre of enforcement.

Without this real-time coordination between those who command troops and tanks, the ceasefire is an empty shell.

But the military layer is only the beginning. The foreign and defence ministers of Malaysia, Cambodia, and Thailand have now been tasked with something far more complex: to create a mechanism that verifies, reports, and maintains the ceasefire. They are expected to deliver a working framework—one that will involve ASEAN observers on the ground, daily reporting chains, and the activation of political communication between the capitals of Phnom Penh and Bangkok.

Malaysia, as the current Chair of ASEAN, is not standing idly by. Kuala Lumpur has committed to coordinating a neutral observer team to ensure that what was agreed in Putrajaya is honoured in the dense forests and contested temple zones of the Thai Cambodian frontier. It is an offer grounded not only in regional leadership but in moral responsibility.

A crucial meeting of the General Border Committee has been scheduled for August 4, to be hosted by Cambodia. This is not a routine item on the diplomatic calendar—it is a pivotal opportunity to transform the ceasefire into a structured roadmap for lasting peace. The committee must not shy away from confronting hard issues: territorial demarcation, security guarantees, troop withdrawals, and non-military use of disputed zones. There is another reason why the ceasefire must hold—and it comes from the sheer rarity of geopolitical convergence. The United States and China, often divided across the Pacific and beyond, have found a shared interest in preventing the unravelling of peace in mainland Southeast Asia. US President Donald Trump has engaged both leaders directly. Beijing has quietly applied pressure on all sides to return to dialogue. This fragile alignment must be seized—not squandered.

Still, we must be realistic. The border between Cambodia and Thailand is no stranger to armed tension. Historical grievances, unresolved demarcations, and militarized patronage politics have often turned minor skirmishes into prolonged hostilities. The difference this time is the presence of digital manipulation and criminal economies—dark networks of scam centres and trafficking hubs that thrive in the chaos of border disorder. Unless these underlying factors are tackled alongside the ceasefire, peace will be short-lived.

This is why the ceasefire must be more than an agreement on paper. It must be a turning point—a firebreak—against a wider conflict that neither Cambodia nor Thailand, nor ASEAN, can afford. What is at stake is not only sovereignty or security, but the credibility of ASEAN’s entire regional architecture.

Malaysia’s intervention, timely and strategic, has done more than mediate; it has offered a template. A model where preventive diplomacy, ASEAN centrality, and global cooperation can prevent another war from erupting in Southeast Asia. The success of this template now depends on execution—not just promises.

If the ceasefire holds, it will be remembered as the moment Southeast Asia averted a catastrophe of its own making. If it fails, the region could spiral into another prolonged chapter of instability, compounded by geopolitical rivalry and economic vulnerability.

This is why the peace agreed in Kuala Lumpur must be preserved with vigilance and seriousness. There is still time, still space, and still reason to believe that this agreement can succeed. But only if all sides recognize the cost of failure—and act decisively to prevent it. The window is narrow. The stakes are high. The world is watching. And ASEAN must deliver.

---

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.