Fight between? On the morning of July 24, Thai and Cambodian troops clashed at multiple locations along their 800-km border. Following five days of fighting that resulted in 43 deaths (including civilians) and the displacement of more than 300,000 people, both sides arrived at a ceasefire that took effect on July 29. Mediated by ASEAN chair Malaysia, with help from China, and under the looming threat of U.S. tariffs, the truce appeared to largely hold despite claims of breach by both parties.

After the agreement came Cambodia’s call on July 31 for the release of its 20 soldiers detained for crossing into Thai-held territory after the truce. Bangkok has acceded, but only upon the fulfilment of legal procedures — proof that the peace deal, despite putting a temporary halt to the fighting, is a minor respite at best. For the roots of the conflict can be traced back to pre-colonial times; and with domestic politics, international scam centres and nationalism coming to the mix, multiple interests are at stake, complicating matters further.

Rise of tensions

Prior to the latest clashes was the May 28 incident in which a Cambodian soldier was killed. Tensions ran high, forcing the then-Thai Prime Minister, Paetongtarn Shinawatra, to ring up strongman and Cambodia’s former Premier Hun Sen on June 15 to placate the situation. As a leaked version of their conversation showed, Ms. Paetongtarn, whose family shares close ties with the Cambodian leader, sounded deferential by referring to him as “uncle” and labelling a Thai military General as “opponent”. The ensuing fallout, which cost Ms. Paetongtarn her job, is widely believed to have been orchestrated by Mr. Hun Sen to deflect attention from the international cyberscam centres operating in his country.

Apart from inviting global scrutiny, these scam offices are also alleged to be run by the Cambodian government’s allies and possess links to China — Phnom Penh’s biggest benefactor.

Another incentive for Mr. Hun Sen to stir the pot is to whip up nationalist sentiments and boost the credentials of his son Hun Manet, sworn to office in 2024, 33 years after his father relinquished power.

For Mr. Hun Sen — who once called Ms. Paetongtarn’s father and former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra his ‘god brother’ — Thailand, with its delicate political landscape owing to the presence of the monarchy and the military, presents itself as a soft target. Separately, Mr. Hun Sen is also accused by his opponents of adopting a soft stance towards Vietnam, whose Army in 1979 overthrew the Khmer Rouge and installed the 72-year-old Cambodian People’s Party in power.

Also on Mr. Hun Sen’s mind is the Thai government’s proposed casino legalisation Bill, which may adversely impact Cambodia’s gambling sector. Thus, bringing down the Shinawatras’ Pheu Thai party is a one-stop solution to all his problems and seemed plausible too, given that, with Ms. Paetongtarn suspended from duty and Mr. Thaksin facinglese majestecharges for “insulting the monarchy”, the Shinawatras are already out of favour with the Thai citizens.

Nationalist rhetoric

However, nationalist rhetoric is not restricted to Cambodia alone but is an overarching sentiment in Thailand, too.

A 2003 remark by a Thai actress, in which she said Cambodia had ‘stolen’ Angkor Wat and that she would not visit the country until the monument was returned, sparked anti-Thai riots.

Taken in isolation, the statement may not carry much weight. But when placed in the larger context, it reflects the overall mood of a country, which, while priding itself as the only one in the region to be not subjected to Western colonisation, still perceives itself as a victim.

This is because history has been equally unkind to both Cambodia and Thailand. Between the 7th century and the 14th century, the Khmer Empire ruled over a vast tract of the mainland in Southeast Asia. During its heyday in the 12th century, the Khmer empire comprised Cambodia as well as parts of present-day northeastern Thailand and southern Vietnam. The power structure was based on the Mandala system, which consisted of concentric circles of centre-peripheral relations. Weak territoriality and a loose central authority marked the setup, writes Path Kosal in a chapter in the book,Cambodia’s Foreign Relations in Regional and Global Contexts. This ensured that Angkor kings were able to rule unchallenged over their allies and vassals who presided over the periphery independently.

Trouble began to brew for the Khmer empire from the time of Angkor’s fall in 1431. It faced threats from Siam (Thailand), which began conquering land from the northeast, and Annam (Vietnam) from the southeast; to the point that King Norodom turned Cambodia into a French protectorate in 1863 in the hope of security.

While Cambodia’s apprehensions of shrinking boundaries and constant threats have roots in pre-colonial times, Thailand’s fears partially stem from the happenings that followed the establishment of the French protectorate. Though the multiple treaties signed between the French and Siamese in 1904 and 1907 serve as the bases for the present-day border between Cambodia and Thailand, many discrepancies exist to date; one of the prime examples being the tussle over the Preah Vihear temple — a 12th-century monument claimed by both countries. While the temple and a 1 sq. km area around it were ruled in Cambodia’s favour by the International Court of Justice, a 4.6 sq. km patch near it is still contested territory. The verdict spurred a conflict between the two nations over the area in 2011, resulting in 28 casualties, including both military personnel and civilians.

Preah Vihear is merely emblematic of the crisis. Similar temples, such as the Ta Moan Thom around which the latest shootout transpired, exist as bones of contention. The temples were built during the reign of the Khmer Empire. As is the case with empires, they rise and fall. And wars fought among the neighbouring kingdoms have seen the borders shift and temples change ownership.

Like in many other conflicts, here too, the fire may have been lit during the time of conquests and colonialism.

However, the nationalists and the ruling class of both countries – Cambodia has an authoritarian regime and Thailand’s is a coup-prone establishment — have seen to it that the flames were fanned throughout history to suit them.

1. Nationalist Agendas Fuelled the Border Fight Between Thailand and Cambodia: 100 Injured

Border disputes in Southeast Asia have often been influenced by history, nationalism, and contested resources. One of the most intense confrontations in recent decades unfolded between Thailand and Cambodia, where a simmering border dispute turned violent, leaving 100 people injured and raising questions about the dangers of nationalist politics in shaping regional relations.

Historical Roots of the Dispute

At the center of the tension is the Preah Vihear Temple, a centuries-old Hindu temple complex perched on a cliff along the Thai-Cambodian border. In 1962, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that the temple belonged to Cambodia. However, the surrounding 4.6 square kilometers of land remained contested, sparking decades of nationalist rhetoric on both sides.

For Thailand, political leaders often used the issue to stir patriotic emotions, framing the temple as a symbol of lost heritage. In Cambodia, the temple became a point of national pride and identity, with successive governments invoking it as a unifying issue in times of domestic turmoil.

The Escalation of Violence

The flashpoint came when both countries increased their military presence near the disputed zone. What began as occasional skirmishes escalated into heavy exchanges of gunfire and artillery. In one of the most violent episodes, clashes left 100 people injured—including soldiers and civilians on both sides.

Villages near the border were evacuated, and schools were shut down as residents fled to safer areas. Families were separated, and livelihoods were disrupted. Reports highlighted that cultural sites, including parts of the temple grounds, sustained damage during the fighting, drawing international condemnation.

The Role of Nationalism

Nationalist agendas played a decisive role in fueling the conflict. In Thailand, nationalist groups accused the government of being “soft” on Cambodia, demanding a stronger stance to protect sovereignty. Cambodian leaders, on the other hand, portrayed resistance as a defense of national honor against a larger, more powerful neighbor.

This rhetoric inflamed public sentiment, making compromise politically risky. Leaders on both sides recognized that backing down could be interpreted as betrayal, and thus, nationalist pride often outweighed diplomatic logic.

Humanitarian Consequences

Beyond political maneuvering, the border fight had devastating consequences for ordinary citizens. Hundreds were displaced, farmlands were destroyed, and essential services in border villages collapsed. Human rights organizations pointed out that civilians bore the brunt of decisions shaped by nationalist pride rather than pragmatic diplomacy.

The injuries sustained—many among innocent villagers—became a grim reminder that nationalist disputes rarely stay confined to political chambers; they spill into the lives of people who have little to do with the larger geopolitical struggle.

International Involvement and Mediation

The clashes attracted the attention of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), which attempted to mediate. Indonesia, as the chair at the time, pushed for ceasefire agreements and dialogue. The United Nations also urged restraint, emphasizing respect for international rulings and the preservation of cultural heritage.

Although temporary ceasefires were brokered, trust remained low. Both militaries fortified their positions, and sporadic skirmishes continued. The conflict revealed the limitations of regional mechanisms when nationalist agendas dominate political discourse.

Long-Term Implications

The Thailand-Cambodia border fight highlighted several key lessons:

1. Nationalism as a Double-Edged Sword – While nationalism can unify a population, it can also fuel conflict and make compromise nearly impossible.

2. Cultural Heritage as a Battlefield – The use of a temple, meant to symbolize shared history and spirituality, as a pawn in political struggles shows how heritage can be weaponized.

3. Civilian Vulnerability – Injuries and displacement among ordinary citizens underscore the need for humanitarian considerations in cross-border disputes.

4. Regional Fragility – The incident exposed ASEAN’s limited ability to enforce peace among member states when national pride is at stake.

Moving Towards Resolution

In the years following the clashes, there have been attempts to de-escalate tensions. Joint border committees were established, and the ICJ was again approached to clarify the temple’s territorial boundaries. While the legal clarifications have eased some disputes, nationalist groups in both countries remain sensitive to perceived concessions.

The ultimate path forward requires not only legal agreements but also political courage to shift the narrative away from confrontation toward cooperation. Promoting cross-border cultural tourism, shared economic zones, and people-to-people exchanges may help reduce hostility.

Conclusion

The border fight between Thailand and Cambodia, which left 100 injured, was more than a dispute over land—it was a conflict shaped by nationalist agendas, historical grievances, and political opportunism. It demonstrated how leaders often exploit patriotism, turning cultural symbols into battlegrounds.

While the wounds of the clashes still linger, the future depends on whether both nations can rise above nationalist posturing to embrace diplomacy. Without such efforts, the shadow of the Preah Vihear Temple will continue to loom not as a monument of heritage, but as a reminder of how fragile peace can be when nationalism fuels conflict.

1. Nationalist Agendas Fuelled the Border Fight Between Thailand and Cambodia: 100 Injured

Border disputes in Southeast Asia have often been influenced by history, nationalism, and contested resources. One of the most intense confrontations in recent decades unfolded between Thailand and Cambodia, where a simmering border dispute turned violent, leaving 100 people injured and raising questions about the dangers of nationalist politics in shaping regional relations.

Historical Roots of the Dispute

At the center of the tension is the Preah Vihear Temple, a centuries-old Hindu temple complex perched on a cliff along the Thai-Cambodian border. In 1962, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that the temple belonged to Cambodia. However, the surrounding 4.6 square kilometers of land remained contested, sparking decades of nationalist rhetoric on both sides.

For Thailand, political leaders often used the issue to stir patriotic emotions, framing the temple as a symbol of lost heritage. In Cambodia, the temple became a point of national pride and identity, with successive governments invoking it as a unifying issue in times of domestic turmoil.

The Escalation of Violence

The flashpoint came when both countries increased their military presence near the disputed zone. What began as occasional skirmishes escalated into heavy exchanges of gunfire and artillery. In one of the most violent episodes, clashes left 100 people injured—including soldiers and civilians on both sides.

Villages near the border were evacuated, and schools were shut down as residents fled to safer areas. Families were separated, and livelihoods were disrupted. Reports highlighted that cultural sites, including parts of the temple grounds, sustained damage during the fighting, drawing international condemnation.

The Role of Nationalism

Nationalist agendas played a decisive role in fueling the conflict. In Thailand, nationalist groups accused the government of being “soft” on Cambodia, demanding a stronger stance to protect sovereignty. Cambodian leaders, on the other hand, portrayed resistance as a defense of national honor against a larger, more powerful neighbor.

This rhetoric inflamed public sentiment, making compromise politically risky. Leaders on both sides recognized that backing down could be interpreted as betrayal, and thus, nationalist pride often outweighed diplomatic logic.

Humanitarian Consequences

Beyond political maneuvering, the border fight had devastating consequences for ordinary citizens. Hundreds were displaced, farmlands were destroyed, and essential services in border villages collapsed. Human rights organizations pointed out that civilians bore the brunt of decisions shaped by nationalist pride rather than pragmatic diplomacy.

The injuries sustained—many among innocent villagers—became a grim reminder that nationalist disputes rarely stay confined to political chambers; they spill into the lives of people who have little to do with the larger geopolitical struggle.

International Involvement and Mediation

The clashes attracted the attention of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), which attempted to mediate. Indonesia, as the chair at the time, pushed for ceasefire agreements and dialogue. The United Nations also urged restraint, emphasizing respect for international rulings and the preservation of cultural heritage.

Although temporary ceasefires were brokered, trust remained low. Both militaries fortified their positions, and sporadic skirmishes continued. The conflict revealed the limitations of regional mechanisms when nationalist agendas dominate political discourse.

Long-Term Implications

The Thailand-Cambodia border fight highlighted several key lessons:

1. Nationalism as a Double-Edged Sword – While nationalism can unify a population, it can also fuel conflict and make compromise nearly impossible.

2. Cultural Heritage as a Battlefield – The use of a temple, meant to symbolize shared history and spirituality, as a pawn in political struggles shows how heritage can be weaponized.

3. Civilian Vulnerability – Injuries and displacement among ordinary citizens underscore the need for humanitarian considerations in cross-border disputes.

4. Regional Fragility – The incident exposed ASEAN’s limited ability to enforce peace among member states when national pride is at stake.

Geopolitical Dimensions: More Than Just a Border Clash

Though the dispute centered on a temple, the fight had geopolitical undertones. Both Thailand and Cambodia were navigating domestic political instability at the time. For Thai leaders, facing protests and political divisions at home, a hardline stance on the border issue provided a convenient distraction. In Cambodia, leaders used the conflict to consolidate support and deflect criticism of governance challenges.

The border fight also drew the attention of external players. Regional observers noted how China’s growing influence in Cambodia and the United States’ ties with Thailand created subtle power dynamics. While neither directly intervened, the incident reminded Southeast Asia of the risks of local disputes becoming entangled with great-power politics.

Historical Parallels in the Region

This conflict is not unique. Southeast Asia has seen multiple disputes shaped by nationalist agendas:

• Malaysia and Indonesia over the Sipadan and Ligitan islands.

• China and several ASEAN states over the South China Sea.

• Myanmar’s border tensions with Bangladesh and Thailand.

In each case, nationalism amplified the conflict, complicating diplomatic solutions. The Thailand-Cambodia fight fits into this broader regional pattern where history, pride, and politics collide.

Voices from the Ground

Amid the heated rhetoric, voices from the affected communities told a different story. Many residents along the border had family ties and trade relations across national lines. For them, the dispute disrupted livelihoods, friendships, and centuries of shared culture. Farmers could not tend to their fields, children were unable to attend schools, and cross-border trade came to a halt.

Local accounts highlighted the irony: while governments invoked nationalism to justify confrontation, the people living at the border often valued coexistence more than division.

The Way Forward

Resolving such disputes requires more than legal rulings; it requires reshaping the political narrative. Leaders in both countries need to shift the emphasis from sovereignty to shared heritage and cooperation. Imagine the Preah Vihear Temple not as a dividing line, but as a joint UNESCO heritage project that symbolizes cultural unity.

Joint economic initiatives, tourism collaborations, and cross-border community programs could transform the temple from a symbol of conflict into a beacon of cooperation. Most importantly, both governments must resist the temptation to weaponize nationalism for short-term political gain.

Conclusion

The border fight between Thailand and Cambodia, which left 100 injured, was more than a dispute over land—it was a conflict shaped by nationalist agendas, historical grievances, and political opportunism. It demonstrated how leaders often exploit patriotism, turning cultural symbols into battlegrounds.

While the wounds of the clashes still linger, the future depends on whether both nations can rise above nationalist posturing to embrace diplomacy. Without such efforts, the shadow of the Preah Vihear Temple will continue to loom not as a monument of heritage, but as a reminder of how fragile peace can be when nationalism fuels conflict.

Published – August 02, 2025 05:30 am IST