By Collins Chong Yew Keat

KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia: The Thailand-Cambodia conflict transcends the current ASEAN mechanism and capacity alone to deter or manage, seeing how its historical, contextual and nationalistic multi-factorial setting has shaped the spectrum of the conflict that the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) alone is not able to fully resolve.

The historical timeline of the dispute and conflict dwarfs the timeline of ASEAN's formation alone, and as with the likes of the India-Pakistan discord,  it is rooted deeply into the spectrum of national pride and sovereignty, domestic political and nationalistic needs.

Beijing moved early, offering to facilitate talks and signalling its interest in preventing further destabilization, keen to display its grip and diplomatic foothold in the Mekong region and has already got entrenched economic and military foothold in Cambodia that has rattled neighbours.

It wants to be seen as a reliable and responsible power in bringing about peace and stability, while Washington is worried that Beijing will consolidate its influence using this conflict, and has acted with speed and leadership.

President Trump’s role remains the single biggest deterrent factor in conflict escalation in the initial phase, and in getting both sides to come to the negotiating table which is then facilitated by Malaysia as the ASEAN Chair.

Both Cambodia and Thailand rely on the vast US market for their export driven economies, in garments and textiles for Cambodia, in manufacturing and agricultural goods for Thailand. Trump’s tariff and market access card is being used with great wisdom and strategic intent to compel both to cease hostilities, just as in the case of India-Pakistan.

Both Thailand and Cambodia were facing looming 36 percent U.S. import tariffs, to take effect on 1 August unless superseded by new bilateral trade deals.

Trump made the connection explicit. In personal calls to Prime Minister Hun Manet and Acting Prime Minister Phumtham Wechayachai, he warned that is there is no ceasefire, the consequence will be that there will be no trade deal.

Both leaders understood that losing U.S. market access would result in a major economic destruction. The looming deadline of tariff implementation created direct, instant and unavoidable pressure on both leaders, forcing them to add. Trump knows this and uses this to most strategic effect, same as what he has done successfully for the India-Pakistan conflict.

The outcome functioned as the needed economic pressure to achieve peace. Through the negotiations Trump created an escape for both leaders; Stop fighting so that talks can resume while they could explain their decision to their domestic audience that national sovereignty still reigns without being seen as submitting to the other side.

Domestic factor remains one of the biggest roadblocks and stimulants, where both would not want to be seen as weak if they were to submit to UN or ASEAN’s calls and push for a ceasefire, especially with Thailand’s new domestic uncertainties.

Phumtham presented the ceasefire as a way to save lives and protect economic opportunities instead of giving concessions to Cambodia.
Hun Manet used his first year in office to present the ceasefire as an international endorsement of Cambodia's position.

Limitations for ASEAN

Despite ASEAN’s claiming credit for the talks, much of the works have been sealed due to the direct pressure involved from Trump. ASEAN's previous appeals for peace, alongside with the UN, received no attention from the involved parties before Trump intervened.

ASEAN functioned as the platform for this particular situation, as the enabler of the negotiations and diplomatic craft, while the United States developed the entire script with tool and pressure.

The subsequent follow up is where ASEAN’s roles have been more prominent, specifically Malaysia’s strategic craftsmanship of diplomatic maneuver through smart regional leadership and choice of tools, with the Malaysian military playing a central role.

The ceasefire orchestrated by Malaysia is propelled by the wisdom and leadership of the Malaysian military in playing a stellar role in getting the Thai and Cambodian counterparts in to put an end to the bloodshed and to establish clear and accepted terms of the implementation of the ceasefire mechanisms.

This remains fundamental, as military professionalism and ethics will spearhead and enhance effective communications, agreements, and implementation of the agreed points, away from the political overtures and limited efficacies  of the political decision-making.

This is also pivotal in maintaining the element of trust, acceptance and professionalism. The trust deficit in the beginning was high, and accusations of violations emerged almost immediately.

Malaysia’s Masterstroke

ASEAN did play a meaningful part in the ceasefire process yet the actual story and factor behind this reveals great-power influence as the main driving force.

The involvement of the military and defense attachés from ASEAN member states in the General Border Committee (GBC) meeting remains a smart strategic move.

Their presence reflects an important shift away from politicized diplomacy toward professional military-to-military engagement, one that is grounded in shared norms, standard operating procedures, and mutual respect for institutional codes of conduct, rather than being confined to political interests and maneuvers.

Their presence reflects an important shift away from politicized diplomacy toward professional military-to-military engagement, one that is grounded in shared norms, standard operating procedures, and mutual respect for institutional codes of conduct, rather than being confined to political interests and maneuvers.

Political representatives will be constrained by domestic political considerations, public sentiments and  nationalist pressure, while military institutions operate under the values of a more stable and institutionalised framework, and an apolitical framework of engagement.

This is structured around rules of engagement, de-escalation protocols, and defense cooperation norms, making it more conducive to confidence-building capacities, building transparency, and enhancing operational coordination.

These facets are critical in the context of the Cambodia–Thailand border dispute, where the flashpoints involve troop placements, patrol zones, and engagement rules, these are the domains that are under the direct remit of the armed forces, not foreign ministries.

The participation of ASEAN military attachés creates a new layer of regional oversight and credibility, enhances both technical trust and regional ownership, which are often undermined when resolution efforts are led solely through the lenses of diplomatic channels with overlapping political agendas.

In this regard, the Malaysian Armed Forces that serve as the host and facilitator of the GBC talks play a crucial convening and leadership role, projecting as a trusted neutral party with no direct stakes in the territorial dispute, with already solid bilateral defense ties with both Phnom Penh and Bangkok.

Malaysia’s efforts to bring together high-ranking military officials and defense attachés from across ASEAN also reinforces its image as a regional peace facilitator through a rules-based approach.

Trump’s Deterrent Factor

ASEAN simply does not have the capacity of economic pressure or threats of sanctions or the security and defence dependence card that Beijing or Washington have, and the reality is that ASEAN lacks the ability to create necessary pressure which would stop fights between members. Washington and Beijing maintain the actual power capacities to do that. 

Beijing provides political protection and investment, while Washington creates the needed security umbrella. ASEAN offers neither. The regional grouping’s ability to maintain strategic autonomy remains limited because its member states require external pressure from Washington or Beijing to achieve peace, not from within ASEAN itself.

Trump represented a pure example of effective transactional realism. He favours realistic and common sense approach of exerting the right pressure, tactic and core factor in ending conflicts, which is sorely lacking in conventional diplomacy and norms as can be seen in his predecessors.

Through his approach he eliminated time-consuming procedures, reflecting decisive leadership. The approach yielded effective results regardless of what people choose to name it or trying to paint him in a negative light.

Not all leaders possess the ability to use this method. The efficacy of this method depends on two central elements: credibility which means the ability to carry out the threat and power to make the threat effective. Trump had both.

Washington pushed the agreement forward as the main force behind the negotiations. The tariff ultimatum established both economic penalties for non-cooperation and the expected positive outcomes for peace negotiations. The agreement between both parties established a present need to halt combat instead of delaying it.

In the long run, a ceasefire alone will not solve the long standing conundrum and the sense of mistrust and wariness, and ASEAN alone is not able to provide the necessary guarantees nor the needed economic or security pressure to both sides, as both continue to rely more externally than on ASEAN in terms of strategic dependency.

*Collins Chong Yew Keat is a foreign affairs and strategy analyst and author in University of Malaya.*