A Shared Heritage Framework for Lasting Peace in the 2025 Thai-Cambodian Crisis
The deafening roar of artillery and the displacement of hundreds of thousands of people are more than just tragic statistics. They are the result of a cycle of historical grievance that can be addressed by a shared heritage framework. The 2025 border crisis between Thailand and Cambodia, with its deep historical roots, suggests that lasting peace may be difficult to achieve through military or diplomatic posturing alone. This document offers a practical and actionable roadmap for negotiators, grounded in the shared values and history that have long connected these two nations, to address the underlying causes of the conflict and foster genuine, long-term reconciliation.
Historical Context: The Roots of the Conflict
The modern border between Thailand and Cambodia is a direct consequence of colonial-era agreements. It was established by a series of treaties between Siam (Thailand) and France (on behalf of Cambodia) in the early 20th century. These treaties, along with the controversial Annex I Map, created a perpetually disputed border that has festered for over a century. The Preah Vihear Temple, a UNESCO World Heritage site, has become a powerful and painful symbol of this divide. The document's timeline shows how these unresolved issues led to the rapid escalation of the 2025 crisis:
1904 & 1907: The Franco-Siamese treaties are signed, establishing the border. The Annex I Map is created, which controversially places the Preah Vihear Temple on the Cambodian side, despite violating the agreed-upon watershed line principle.
1962: The International Court of Justice (ICJ) rules that the Preah Vihear Temple belongs to Cambodia, a decision based on Thailand's long-standing acquiescence to the Annex I Map. The ruling does not fully resolve the border demarcation around the temple.
2008: The temple is declared a UNESCO World Heritage site, reigniting nationalist tensions and leading to military clashes.
2011: Fighting escalates with artillery exchanges and casualties on both sides, prompting Cambodia to request a clarification from the ICJ.
2013: The ICJ clarifies its 1962 ruling, stating that the land on the promontory leading up to the temple also belongs to Cambodia and orders Thai troops to withdraw.
The 2025 Crisis: A Detailed Account of Recent Events
The long-standing border dispute between Thailand and Cambodia escalated significantly in recent months, culminating in armed conflict and a subsequent, fragile ceasefire. The crisis began with an exchange of gunfire on May 28, 2025, that killed a Cambodian soldier. Both countries blamed the other, and tensions remained high. Cambodia responded with economic actions and Thailand with increased troop presence.
The situation was further complicated by political turmoil in Thailand. A leaked phone call in which then-Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra appeared to show a lack of respect for the Thai military sparked outrage, leading to her suspension and hindering diplomatic efforts. The conflict reached a critical point in late July 2025 after a landmine explosion injured several Thai soldiers. Full-scale armed clashes broke out on July 24, with both sides using heavy weaponry. In a dangerous escalation, Thailand deployed an F-16 fighter jet for airstrikes.
A defining feature of the conflict was its rapid and destructive expansion into the digital battlefield. Both nations used social media to stoke nationalism and spread disinformation. During the conflict, a widely circulated deepfake video, purporting to show a Thai F-16 being shot down, was actually footage from the Ukraine war. This misinformation, disseminated on social media, inflamed nationalist sentiment and served as a potent example of the digital battlefield's destructive power.
Thailand's Strategy: The military and government mobilized public support through official channels and coordinated hashtag campaigns like #กัมพูชายิงก่อน (Cambodia fired first) and #ไทยนี้รักสงบแต่ถึงรบไม่ขลาด (Thais love peace but are not cowards). This strategy created a "crowdsourced nationalism" that reinforced the official narrative.
Cambodia's Strategy: Cambodia’s approach focused on creating a narrative of victimhood. The government and its allies disseminated manipulated content, including fake videos that made it difficult for citizens to distinguish fact from fiction.
The fighting, which resulted in dozens of deaths and the displacement of over 300,000 people, was brought to a halt by a ceasefire on July 28, brokered in Malaysia. While the ceasefire is holding, the situation remains precarious, with many displaced residents hesitant to return.
Domestic Agendas and International Posturing: The True Drivers of the Conflict
The recent conflict, while rooted in a border dispute, has been exploited by both nations' political and military elites to advance specific domestic and international interests. The crisis has served as a catalyst for political maneuvering, the stoking of nationalist sentiment, and a display of military strength.
Cambodia's Interests:
Legitimize New Leadership: The conflict has allowed Prime Minister Hun Manet to forge an identity as a strong "wartime leader."
Consolidate Territorial Claims: By escalating tensions, the government may be seeking to strengthen its control over contested regions around ancient Khmer temples.
Draw International Attention: Bringing the dispute to the international stage is a strategy to gain global support and pressure Thailand into a favorable resolution.
Thailand's Interests:
Political Maneuvering: The crisis provided an opening for military and royalist elites to weaken the government of former Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra.
Stoke Nationalism: The Thai military and conservative elements have used the conflict to promote nationalist sentiment and position the military as the primary defender of the nation's sovereignty.
Demonstrate Military Strength: The conflict allowed the military to display its advanced capabilities, reinforcing its power and importance both domestically and internationally.
In short, the border dispute has become a convenient vehicle for the ruling elites of both nations to advance their political agendas, making genuine peace efforts a significant challenge.
Peace Initiatives and Negotiations
The ongoing 2025 border crisis between Thailand and Cambodia has seen a variety of peace initiatives from regional and international actors, as well as bilateral efforts. An "immediate and unconditional ceasefire" was brokered on July 28, 2025, after talks in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. This ceasefire was a direct result of diplomatic pressure from multiple international parties.
Malaysia and ASEAN: As the chair of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), Malaysia played a leading role in mediating the ceasefire. It has since hosted follow-up talks to finalize the details of a ceasefire monitoring team, signaling a commitment from the regional bloc to a peaceful resolution.
United States and China: Both the U.S. and China have acted as mediators, a rare alignment of interests. The U.S. applied economic pressure, with President Donald Trump reportedly threatening to pause trade deals with both countries if hostilities continued. China, concerned about regional instability, has also played a "constructive role" by hosting discussions and helping to de-escalate the situation.
United Nations: The UN Security Council held an urgent meeting on the crisis, and Secretary-General António Guterres urged both sides to exercise "maximum restraint" and return to dialogue. The UN continues to call for a lasting solution based on peaceful means.
Bilateral Talks: Thailand and Cambodia have held bilateral meetings through their General Border Committees. These talks are crucial for ironing out the specifics of the ceasefire, such as troop movements, though they have not yet addressed the root cause of the border dispute itself.
Despite the ceasefire, a truly lasting peace remains fragile. Both sides have accused the other of violations, including the deployment of barbed wire and the reinforcement of troops in disputed areas. A critical point of contention is the continued holding of captured soldiers by Thailand. While two wounded soldiers were repatriated, the fate of a larger group remains unresolved. This issue, which has significant humanitarian and diplomatic implications, could be a key confidence-building measure if addressed transparently and under international oversight, such as with the International Red Cross. The key challenge moving forward is to translate the current ceasefire into a durable, long-term peace agreement that resolves the underlying issues.
Five-Point Plan for Interconnected Peace
The 2025 crisis, though tragic, presents an opportunity for a new approach to peace. This five-point plan offers a detailed roadmap for genuine reconciliation.
Reconcile Competing Historical Narratives: To address the foundational grievances, the first step is to create a unified understanding of history. An international joint commission of historians, archaeologists, and cultural experts will be formed. The commission will first focus on less contentious shared history to build trust, such as ancient trade routes or shared cultural figures. Its work will be reviewed and ratified by a neutral body like UNESCO to ensure impartiality. The commission will not seek to invalidate either nation's history, but rather to construct a single, comprehensive historical narrative that accounts for both perspectives. The ultimate goal is to move beyond a zero-sum view of the past, creating a shared historical reality that can be taught in both nations' schools.
Detoxify the Digital Landscape: This plan directly counters the effects of the digital battlefield. Both governments will launch a joint public information campaign to proactively and transparently debunk misinformation. This initiative will include a secure hotline connecting military press offices to verify facts in real-time. A formal agreement with social media platforms will establish an official, real-time fact-checking mechanism to rapidly remove verified disinformation. This proactive approach is designed to disrupt the destructive cycle of digital escalation. By providing a verified, trusted source of information, the campaign will untangle the conflicting narratives that stoke nationalism, creating a shared and stable basis for communication that starves the digital battlefield of the fuel it needs to ignite violence.
Launch Phased Economic Initiatives: To demonstrate the benefits of cooperation, economic partnerships will be initiated. Both nations will first agree to a small-scale pilot project, such as a joint cross-border market in a specific border town. This will provide a foundation for expanding to a larger economic zone with shared infrastructure and tourism projects. A formal agreement will also create a Joint Authority to manage the Preah Vihear Temple as a shared cultural site. This authority would be composed of an equal number of representatives from both nations and a neutral chairperson. By starting with small-scale pilot projects, both nations can demonstrate that positive outcomes can emerge from cooperation, which in turn provides the necessary foundation for a broader economic zone. The creation of a Joint Authority for the Preah Vihear Temple would transform a symbol of division into a new, unified reality—a monument of shared cultural heritage and prosperity.
Strengthen Diplomacy with a Code of Conduct: This focuses on institutionalizing a framework for respectful and constructive dialogue. Both nations will institutionalize a Code of Conduct for Diplomatic and Military Engagement. This code will require all parties to prioritize dialogue and de-escalation over military posturing, including a commitment for direct communication between military commanders before taking aggressive action. It will establish a framework for validating each other's grievances and moving towards a collaborative solution that honors both nations' dignity. This code compels diplomats and military leaders to reframe their perception of the conflict, moving from a position of blame to one of mutual validation. By actively listening to and honoring each other's grievances, this new approach allows for the discovery of collaborative solutions that were previously obscured by zero-sum thinking, creating a new diplomatic reality where both nations' dignity is preserved.
Institutionalize a Third-Party Dispute-Resolution Mechanism: To ensure long-term accountability, an external enforcement body will be established. An independent, neutral body, led by a regional organization like ASEAN, will be created. This body will be tasked with mediating future disputes and verifying compliance with the peace framework. It will issue diplomatically significant findings for any violations, such as public reports that exert international pressure. This body would not only mediate disputes but also serve as a systemic regulator, working to manage the dynamics of the conflict and the unintended consequences that may emerge. By providing impartial oversight and verification, it ensures that the peace framework is a stable system, holding both nations accountable and preventing the re-emergence of destructive cycles.
Conclusion
The ongoing 2025 crisis is a stark reminder of how easily historical grievances can escalate. Yet, it also presents a profound opportunity for change. By applying the principles of their shared heritage and implementing this practical, detailed plan, both Thailand and Cambodia can move beyond the destructive cycle of conflict. The Joint Authority for Preah Vihear is a tangible embodiment of this framework, transforming a site of division into a beacon of cooperation. The path to lasting peace is a virtuous middle ground that values mutual respect over nationalistic pride, cooperative action over confrontation, and self-mastery over military might. This framework is a choice—a path that honors their shared past and builds a more peaceful future for generations to come, a future where true victory is found not in conquest, but in reconciliation.
