JULY 25 — In the long and tangled history of Thailand-Cambodia relations, the frontier between the two nations has often served less as a boundary and more as a crucible for conflict. Nowhere is this more evident than the Ta Muen Thom sector — where barbed wire, bunkers, and bitter memories converge. It is precisely here, in this theatre of overlapping claims and ancient temples, that we must begin a new journey: the full demilitarisation of the border, starting with this volatile corridor.
Recent skirmishes along the frontier — most notably the deadly exchange of fire near the Emerald Triangle in May 2025 and the confirmed allegations of Cambodian minelaying reported by The Bangkok Post in July — have revived ghosts of the past. From 2008 to 2011, Thai and Cambodian troops faced off repeatedly over sacred sites like Preah Vihear and Ta Krabey. Peace was elusive because firepower and politics trumped common sense. As tensions now threaten to spiral again, the stakes are even higher, exacerbated by the intermingling of military control with the illegal digital economy, narcotics networks, and cross-border crime. The line between sovereignty and subversion is blurring fast.
To break this dangerous cycle, Asean must act decisively, and Bangkok and Phnom Penh must agree to a phased, externally monitored demilitarisation. The logical starting point is the Ta Muen Thom corridor, not only because of its historical sensitivity but also its current operational volatility. This is not simply a symbolic gesture — it is a strategic necessity.
The case for Ta Muen Thom
Located in Surin province on the Thai side and Oddar Meanchey on the Cambodian side, the Ta Muen Thom complex has long been a fault line between military patrols and nationalist claims. It houses not just a sacred Khmer-era temple but a frontline of armoured deployments. Any spark here—be it accidental or deliberate—could ignite a wider conflict. More importantly, this area sits atop one of the most porous segments of the border, where human trafficking, scam syndicates, and illicit arms movement have flourished under the cloak of nationalism.
Cambodia’s decision to lay new mines, allegedly to slow Thai military advances, is a grim reminder of the past’s persistence. Despite being a signatory to the Ottawa Treaty banning landmines, Phnom Penh’s apparent violations not only endanger civilians but inflame already raw sentiments in Thailand. For Bangkok, any suggestion of Cambodian expansionism, especially near ancient temples with shared heritage, plays directly into domestic narratives of sovereignty under siege.
Yet it is this very mix of history and hysteria that makes the Ta Muen Thom corridor the most urgent candidate for demilitarisation.
A Cambodian military personnel stands on a BM-21 Grad multiple rocket launcher, around 40km from the disputed Ta Moan Thom temple, after Thailand and Cambodia exchanged heavy artillery on Friday as their worst fighting in more than a decade stretched for a second day, in Oddar Meanchey province, Cambodia, July 25, 2025. — Reuters pic
Three tiers of ceasefire: From tactical to transformational
Ceasefire agreements alone are not enough. History shows that Thailand and Cambodia have repeatedly agreed to halt hostilities only to see fighting resume within days. That is why this conflict demands a structured and multi-layered approach to demilitarisation — built on three essential types of ceasefires.
First, tactical or local ceasefires are needed immediately. These must be enforced at flashpoints like Ta Muen Thom, Khnar Temple, and Preah Vihear. Commanders on both sides must establish direct communication channels, perhaps via an Asean Emergency Border Hotline, to prevent miscalculations and rogue operations. When troops face off without coordination, minor incidents can escalate into major bloodshed.
Second, a ceasefire monitored by neutral observers is crucial. This was the original intent behind the 2011 agreement that allowed Indonesian observers to patrol the Preah Vihear region. A similar framework should now be extended to Ta Muen Thom. The Asean Secretariat, with support from the Asean Regional Forum (ARF), can redeploy a border monitoring team composed of unarmed civilians and retired military officials from neutral Asean states like Malaysia and Indonesia. Their presence would reduce the chance of surprise offensives and increase transparency.
Third, and most vital for long-term peace, a permanent ceasefire must be legally embedded in an internationally recognised framework. This would entail mutual recognition of the ICJ’s 1962 and 2013 rulings, which awarded Preah Vihear to Cambodia and called for the establishment of demilitarised zones. Thailand has often rejected the ICJ’s broader jurisdiction over the border demarcation, but in the spirit of Asean unity, both sides must now work through the Asean Charter’s High Council for Dispute Resolution or agree to third-party arbitration by an Asean–UN hybrid mechanism.
Geopolitics and local politics: A dangerous nexus
Why is such decisive action urgent now? Because the regional geopolitical climate is shifting fast — and not in Asean’s favour. China’s expanding role in both Cambodia’s digital economy and Thai political patronage has introduced new complexities. Beijing’s request earlier this year for Thailand to crack down on scam networks operating out of border casinos was met with quiet compliance in Bangkok but fury in Phnom Penh. Leaked communications between former Prime Minister Hun Sen and Thai Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra revealed growing distrust.
For Hun Sen, whose family network is deeply intertwined with the digital economy emanating from the Cambodian frontier, Thai enforcement risks undermining his dynastic interests. For Paetongtarn, whose premiership rests on winning over both military and civilian constituencies, appearing weak in the face of Cambodian provocation is politically untenable. Both are prisoners of their own nationalist narratives.
Against this backdrop, a military provocation — even unintended — could provide domestic political capital. But it would be catastrophic for regional stability.
The Asean responsibility to intervene
Asean is often criticised for being slow, reactive, or overly cautious. But the bloc is not without tools. Article 23 of the Asean Charter allows the convening of a High Council to mediate disputes. The Asean Chair — currently Malaysia — can immediately request an emergency consultation with both parties, perhaps convened in neutral Jakarta. If necessary, Malaysia and Vietnam should be appointed as special envoys to mediate, given their shared borders and vested interest in a stable mainland South-east Asia.
Asean must also back the creation of a Joint Border Demilitarisation Commission, supported by the United Nations Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs (UNDPPA), to facilitate logistics, mapping, and troop withdrawals — starting with Ta Muen Thom. This could become a model for resolving other disputed zones, such as along the Lao–Cambodia and Myanmar–Thailand borders.
Demilitarisation is not appeasement
Critics will argue that withdrawing troops from Ta Muen Thom or allowing third-party monitoring is tantamount to surrendering sovereignty. But this is a false binary. Demilitarisation, when coupled with international recognition and border development funds, strengthens sovereignty by removing the incentives for proxy warfare and illegal trafficking.
It also frees both governments from being manipulated by warlords, digital mafia networks, or patronage-based military elites. With peace, the border can become a zone of connectivity, not conflict — supporting trade, tourism, and joint heritage management.
Conclusion: Let the silence begin where it’s loudest
If Asean wants to demonstrate relevance amid rising geopolitical uncertainty, the demilitarisation of the Thai Cambodian border — beginning with Ta Muen Thom — must be its priority. Here lies not just a relic of civilisational pride, but a powder keg of modern insecurity. Turning it into a demilitarised zone would send a powerful signal: that South-east Asia will not be held hostage to the past, nor to the criminal networks and nationalist tempers of the present.
Peace is not forged in grand declarations but in quiet zones. Let the silence begin where the guns once roared the loudest.
*Phar Kim Beng, PhD, is the Director of the Institute of Internationalisation and Asean Studies (IINTAS) at the International Islamic University Malaysia (IIUM). He served as a former Head Teaching Fellow at Harvard University and is a Cambridge Commonwealth Scholar.
**This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
