Rokan's Journal

By Brig Gen (Retd) HRM Rokan Uddin, psc, PhD

The recent fallout between Thai Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra and former Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen—dramatically exposed through a leaked phone call and a scathing Facebook Live broadcast—has drawn back the curtain on what many viewed as an enduring alliance of political convenience. What was once an ideological brotherhood rooted in strongman politics and mutual interests has now fractured into a regional liability. This rupture is not just a personal feud—it reflects deeper geopolitical tremors shaking the foundation of Southeast Asia’s diplomatic architecture and its ability to insulate itself from global rivalries.

Historical Roots of the Conflict

At the heart of the Thailand–Cambodia dispute lies a tangled web of colonial legacies, cultural pride, and nationalist rhetoric. The Preah Vihear Temple, perched dramatically atop the Dangrek Mountains, has been a flashpoint for over a century. Though the International Court of Justice (ICJ) awarded the site to Cambodia in a landmark 1962 ruling, Thai nationalist circles have never fully accepted the judgment. Much of the tension stems from the French-drawn colonial maps used to support the ruling—maps that Thailand claims distort the historical demarcation lines.

This unresolved historical grievance has periodically erupted into skirmishes, most notably in 2008–2011, when border clashes led to casualties and the militarization of surrounding territories. The issue remains deeply emotive for both countries, with cultural identity, historical pride, and territorial sovereignty interwoven into national narratives.

From Border Dispute to Proxy Flashpoint

While the Preah Vihear conflict was initially a bilateral border issue, its current evolution reflects a far more complex reality. The deepening ties between Cambodia and China—spanning infrastructure, defense, and intelligence cooperation—have led many in the West and neighboring capitals to view Phnom Penh as a Beijing proxy. Conversely, Thailand, under both military and civilian leadership, has maintained closer alignment with the U.S. and Japan, though not without its own balancing acts.

This has transformed the conflict into a symbolic node of the broader U.S.–China rivalry in the Indo-Pacific. Both superpowers now interpret regional disputes as strategic chess moves. ASEAN, with its principle of non-interference and consensus-driven diplomacy, has failed to adapt to this new geopolitical environment. Its inability to mediate or even contain the rhetoric between two of its members exposes its structural fragility and diminishing relevance.

Repercussions for the Region and Bangladesh

While geographically removed, Bangladesh cannot afford to ignore the unfolding crisis. The Thailand–Cambodia breakdown is indicative of several emerging risks:

Geopolitical Spillover: As great powers increase their presence and pressure in Southeast Asia, similar dynamics may encroach upon South Asia, including the Bay of Bengal and Bangladesh’s maritime zones.

ASEAN’s Weakening Diplomacy: Bangladesh, which seeks closer cooperation with ASEAN and envisions regional economic integration, must reassess its expectations. The regional bloc’s paralysis in managing internal disputes diminishes its credibility as a platform for peace.

Threat of Proxy Conflicts: As smaller nations become pawns in superpower competition, Bangladesh too risks being caught in rivalries unless it asserts a firmly non-aligned, sovereign-focused foreign policy.

Security of the Bay of Bengal: Naval competition between China, the U.S., and India in the region already impacts maritime routes, ports, and energy corridors vital to Bangladesh’s interests.

Refugee and Migration Dynamics: Political instability in Southeast Asia often creates ripple effects. Previous Cambodian unrest in the 1970s and 1990s contributed to regional displacement, which could recur under escalating conflict.

The Role of Global Powers

The United States views Thailand as a traditional ally under its Indo-Pacific Strategy, while it sees Cambodia’s deep ties with China as a threat to regional “freedom and openness.” Conversely, China considers Cambodia a crucial foothold for its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and a partner in undermining Western-led strategic groupings like the Quad or AUKUS.

Russia, though relatively quiet, has begun to re-engage Southeast Asia diplomatically, potentially offering defense supplies and diplomatic backing to maintain multipolarity. India, for its part, is expanding its “Act East” policy and naval reach in the Andaman Sea and Bay of Bengal, where Thai and Cambodian waters hold strategic importance.

These maneuvers have redefined the conflict, shifting it from a localized temple dispute to a litmus test for Southeast Asia’s capacity to resist foreign manipulation.

The Need for Sovereign-Led Multipolarity

Reducing Southeast Asian nations to proxies undermines regional dignity and sovereignty. Cambodia is not merely a Chinese puppet, nor is Thailand wholly a Western satellite. Each country retains internal complexities, competing factions, and unique strategic calculations. A durable peace must respect these complexities rather than oversimplifying them into ideological alignments.

ASEAN must reinvent itself—moving beyond consensus paralysis and embracing assertive, principled diplomacy. Regional players like Indonesia, Malaysia, and even Bangladesh can act as mediators, proposing confidence-building measures such as joint cultural preservation efforts at Preah Vihear, bilateral border commissions, or ASEAN-led peace missions.

For Bangladesh, the lesson is clear: stay vigilant against proxy entanglements, strengthen strategic autonomy, and invest in defense modernization and regional diplomacy. As the Bay of Bengal becomes increasingly contested, ensuring national security while promoting multilateral cooperation will be vital.

Prospects for Peace and Regional Stability

Peace is possible—but it must begin with decoupling diplomacy from personal ego and foreign pressures. Thailand and Cambodia must return to structured negotiations, supported by ASEAN observers and international guarantees, to clarify territorial boundaries and preserve shared heritage.

Simultaneously, the broader Indo-Pacific community must acknowledge and support sovereign-led multipolarity. Regional disputes should be resolved through regional mechanisms—not shaped in Washington or Beijing.

Conclusion

The Thailand–Cambodia conflict is a warning to all sovereign nations. In an era of shifting alliances and great power rivalry, internal unity, historical awareness, and diplomatic prudence are essential for national survival. For Bangladesh, the path forward lies not in alignment with one pole but in building a resilient, principled, and strategic identity.

Peace is not the absence of conflict—it is the triumph of wisdom over provocation. Let us choose peace but let us also prepare to defend our sovereignty in a world that increasingly seeks to deny it.