Thailand-Cambodia conflict: Mediation roles of ASEAN and China

The border conflict between Thailand and Cambodia has stretched for over six months, marked by repeated cycles of fighting and ceasefires. It stands as the most severe military confrontation in Southeast Asia in nearly 15 years, eroding the foundations of regional peace and stability while creating potential openings for external interference. This conflict provides a perspective on the effectiveness of ASEAN mechanisms, the role of US intervention, and how China, as a neighboring regional power, may contribute to resolving the issue.

On December 7, despite a peace accord already being signed, Thailand and Cambodia again erupted into military conflict, resulting in over 50 civilian deaths and nearly a million people displaced. The conflict has shown signs of becoming prolonged and exhausting, causing harm to the political and economic stability of the involved nations, regional economic integration, and ASEAN unity. It has also raised doubts about whether the ASEAN mechanism is still effective in ensuring security and maintaining regional peace.

Historically, ASEAN emerged in response to security instability and grew through the management of security. Initially dubbed the "Balkans of the East", the region had a fragile security environment when ASEAN was founded. By the 1990s, many of its original members had been free from warfare. ASEAN played a key role in resolving the conflicts of the 1980s and 1990s, such as the Cambodia-Vietnam conflict and the 2008-2011 Thailand-Cambodia Preah Vihear Temple dispute. In this process, ASEAN gradually built a deep sense of community, mature regional norms, an extensive network of dialogues, and close economic ties. It established a common normative system and consensus on interests based on mutual trust, communication, and consultation, developing a trans-regional multilateral security cooperation mechanism distinct from collective defense or military alliances. This made it the only region besides the European Union to achieve success in regional cooperation and economic development post-Cold War, hailed by renowned scholar Kishore Mahbubani as the "ASEAN Miracle". 

The peace ecology of ASEAN is inseparable from the ASEAN way, which emphasizes resolving disputes through peaceful political dialogue, non-interference in internal affairs, regional autonomy with inclusivity, non-coercion, and a preference for informal methods. This approach helps ensure the comfort of member states while retaining strong flexibility, building a collective identity and interest recognition among them, adjusting member state expectations, and helping the region develop a peace-oriented mindset and value system.

The Thailand-Cambodia border dispute is deeply influenced by nationalism and colonial legacies, and is closely linked to domestic politics in both countries. This round of conflict primarily targets unmanned military facilities, with the aim of gaining advantageous terrain and establishing buffer zones. Despite the deployment of modern heavy weapons, large-scale casualties have not occurred, indicating that both countries have established a "red line" to limit the intensity and prevent escalation into large-scale warfare. As ASEAN's community-building progresses, the relationships between member states resemble a "familiar network" characterized by tight economic ties, frequent leaders' interactions, and personal friendships. In this context, conflicts may arise, but they are unlikely to result in "total destruction". Any external interference or "taking sides" could only increase dissatisfaction among the parties involved and sow the seeds for future resentment.

Both Thailand and Cambodia are ancient civilizations in Southeast Asia, with a long history of interactions, shared cultural traits, frequent people-to-people exchanges, and close economic links. The complexity of their dispute means that the resolution of the conflict requires long-term, equal negotiations and mutual understanding. "Unraveling the knot" is key. ASEAN, as a stakeholder and a "family member", can facilitate sincere, equal mediation, focusing on long-term interests and seeking the "greatest common denominator". ASEAN strives not only to "skim the foam off the boiling pot" (temporary fixes) but also to avoid "adding fuel to the fire".

Limited practical role of 'American-style mediation'

In November, after Thai soldiers were "again injured by new Cambodian landmines" along the border, Thailand announced a suspension of the Kuala Lumpur Peace Accord stating that it would no longer be forced by US tariff threats. In December, as the conflict flared up again, Trump claimed to have successfully mediated through a phone call, only to face immediate "slaps in the face" as Thailand "dissatisfied with American rhetoric perceived as favoring Cambodia" and refused to ceasefire. The ceasefire, achieved through US power politics and the "tariff stick", encountered a "Waterloo" in the face of facts, deepening the rift between the US and Thailand, despite their alliance.

The Trump administration used the threat of tariffs as leverage, making a ceasefire a precondition for trade agreements with both Thailand and Cambodia, compelling their compliance. The US also pressured Malaysia to cooperate with its "diplomatic show", allowing the US to host the Kuala Lumpur Peace Accord signing ceremony at the ASEAN summit while excluding China. The US sought to shape its image as the "peace president" and accumulate domestic political capital for electoral purposes. The deeper goal was to intervene in Southeast Asia, balance China's influence, and assert its hegemonic leadership. US mediation focused more on short-term deterrence than on achieving fundamental reconciliation, applying the "America First" logic to intervene and control.

The US merely used "force" to temporarily impose a "we dare not speak" situation between Thailand and Cambodia, but it did not fundamentally resolve the structural contradictions and long-standing anxieties between the two nations, including the difficulties in border demarcation, disagreements over ceasefire implementation, and the impasse in restoring normal diplomatic relations and economic order. Furthermore, in this crisis, the US' aggressive and domineering behavior, coupled with its tendency to weaponize its influence, increased the cost for ASEAN members of "not choosing sides", threatening internal unity and cohesion. As major powers increasingly compete for influence in Southeast Asia, the US may continue to intervene in regional issues in similar low-cost ways. ASEAN's efforts to counter US hegemonic diplomacy and maintain its central position in the regional framework will face further tests.

China's mediation brings hope to resolving the conflict

The Thailand–Cambodia clash drew intense attention from regional states and the wider international community. As tensions soared, China stepped in with active persuasion, injecting fresh momentum into a peaceful settlement. Beijing's approach is marked by patience, meticulous care and perseverance, focused on fostering a friendly atmosphere, defusing animosity and anchoring long-term peace.

Shortly after the first shots were fired, China's diplomacy sprang into action, launching shuttle diplomacy. On December 18, Member of the Political Bureau of the CPC Central Committee and Foreign Minister Wang Yi telephoned Cambodian Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Prak Sokhonn and Thai Foreign Minister Sihasak respectively. He made it clear that "as a close neighbor, China least wants to see the two countries resort to force" and stressed that the urgent priority was to "stop the shooting immediately and limit the damage".

Within minutes of the calls, China's special envoy for Asian Affairs left for both capitals to mediate on the move. He met and consulted senior leaders in Phnom Penh and Bangkok, helping rebuild mutual trust and nudging the two sides toward each other. Both Cambodia and Thailand welcomed China's constructive role and expressed the hope that Beijing would do even more to cool the situation.

Throughout the process, China has consistently upheld the fair, equitable position and the principle of persuading parties to talk. This is the living embodiment of China's neighborhood policy of "amity, sincerity, mutual benefit and inclusiveness" and a down-to-earth application of the Global Security Initiative in the region. The GSI champions a common, comprehensive, cooperative and sustainable security concept, advocating the peaceful resolution of inter-state differences through dialogue and consultation.  

By respecting the primacy of regional countries and offering help rather than encroaching on their authority, China's peacemaker role is readily accepted, carving out crucial space for peace.

China consistently respects ASEAN's central place in the regional architecture and supports ASEAN mediation efforts. Wang Yi underlined that "a prolonged conflict serves neither side and will also undermine ASEAN solidarity", adding that "China supports ASEAN's mediation". 

During the talks Beijing emphasized that both Cambodia and Thailand are key ASEAN members, and that safeguarding unity and managing differences properly serves the region's common interests. China's persuasion looks beyond an immediate cease-fire to the larger picture of ASEAN cohesion and cooperation, laying a regional foundation for a durable solution.  

The day after the Thai and Cambodian defense ministers signed a joint statement, at China's invitation, the foreign ministers of China, Thailand, and Cambodia have met in Yunnan on December 28 to consolidate the ceasefire consensus, bringing hope for peace between Thailand and Cambodia.

Going forward, China will continue to work with ASEAN to ease the conflict and lower temperatures, playing a constructive role in supporting ASEAN-led ceasefire monitoring, helping Thailand and Cambodia with post-conflict recovery and reconstruction, and promoting the resumption of normal trade and diplomatic ties — so that regional countries can share harmony and prosperity, and Asia can enjoy lasting peace.

The authors are associate research professors, Institute for Southeast Asian & Oceanian Studies, China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations.

The views don't necessarily represent those of China Daily.

If you have a specific expertise, or would like to share your thought about our stories, then send us your writings at opinion@chinadaily.com.cn, and comment@chinadaily.com.cn.