Why Cambodia and Thailand continue to fight over border and what happens next

Thousands of people gathered in Cambodia 's capital Phnom Penh for a march to show their solidarity with the government and military over an ongoing border dispute.
The march comes as tensions have escalated between Thailand and Cambodia following the death of a Cambodian soldier in May during a brief exchange of gunfire in a disputed border area.
The two Southeast Asian neighbours have contested sovereignty over various undemarcated points along their 817km land border for more than a century.
This long-standing dispute has seen Thailand impose border restrictions on Cambodia, with the country declaring it would stop import Thai fruit and vegetables.
This is what you need to know about the latest dispute between the two Southeast Asian neighbors.
What was the latest conflict about?
The recent dispute was triggered in May after armed forces of Thailand and Cambodia briefly fired at each other in a relatively small 'no man's land' constituting territory along their border that both countries claim as their own.
Both sides have said they acted in self-defense. One Cambodian soldier was killed.
While the countries said afterwards they have agreed to de-escalate the situation, Cambodian and Thai authorities continue to implement or threaten measures short of armed force at each other, keeping tensions high.
Thailand has added restrictions at the border such as limiting crossing times and barring Thai casino tourists and workers from crossing into Cambodia.
Cambodia has banned Thai movies and TV shows, stopped the import of Thai fruits and vegetables and boycotted its neighbor's international internet links and power supply.
How long have the two fought over land?
Border disputes are long-standing issues that have caused periodic tensions between the two neighbors. Thailand and Cambodia share more than 800 kilometers (500 miles) of land border.
The contesting claims stem largely from a 1907 map drawn under French colonial rule that was used to separate Cambodia from Thailand.
Cambodia has been using the map as a reference to claim territory, while Thailand has argued the map is inaccurate.
In February, Cambodian troops and their family members entered an ancient temple along the border in one of the disputed areas and sang the Cambodian national anthem, leading to a brief argument with Thai troops.
The most prominent and violent conflicts broke out around the 1,000-year-old Preah Vihear temple.
In 1962, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) awarded sovereignty over the area to Cambodia and that became a major irritant in relations.
Cambodia went back to the court in 2011, following several clashes between its army and Thai forces which killed about 20 and displaced thousands of people.
The court reaffirmed the ruling in 2013, a decision that still rattled Thailand.
What happens next?
Similar to the Phear Vihear area, Cambodia is seeking a ruling again from the ICJ over several disputed areas, including where the deadly clash happened.
Thailand has said it doesn't accept the jurisdiction of the ICJ and that any conflicting border claims between the two should be solved by the existing bilateral mechanism, including a joint committee which was established in 2000 as a technical means to discuss the survey and demarcation of the land border.
Cambodia nevertheless said it has submitted the case to the ICJ, and insisted that it would no longer discuss these areas under the two countries' bilateral mechanism.
Tensions have soared as they engaged in a war of words that appeared intended to mollify nationalistic critics on both sides of the border.
Bickering neighbors
The ill feeling between the two neighbors is not just about overlapping border claims, but also deep-seated cultural enmity that has its roots from centuries ago, when they were large and competing empires.
In more modern times, bad feelings have lingered, as Cambodia's development, hindered by French colonialism and, in the 1970s, the brutal rule of the communist Khmer Rouge, has fallen well behind Thailand.
Both have fought over claims on cultural products ranging from boxing, mask dancing, traditional clothing and food.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

The Sun

5 hours ago

• The Sun

Heads must roll over pro-Palestinian thugs break-in at RAF Brize Norton

Brize idiots HOW on earth did pro-Palestinian thugs manage to break into RAF Brize Norton to damage two military planes? Breaking through the perimeter fencing is one thing. 1 But why weren't they stopped in their tracks by armed guards before they got anywhere near military assets? Instead, the first hapless commanders heard of it was when Palestine Action gleefully posted their footage online. It's beyond belief that security could be so lax at a time when the base is on high alert over Iran and Russia. Results of a full investigation must be made public and, if necessary, heads should roll. Meanwhile, this wasn't a harmless stunt by a cosy protest group. Palestine Action is made up of dangerous fanatics bent on attacking our country from within on behalf of a foreign cause. Lord Walney, the Government's ex-adviser on political violence, recommended it be outlawed as an extremist political group more than a year ago. The militants have since gone on to terrorise workers at weapons factories and people outside Crown courts. We welcome Home Secretary Yvette Cooper's decision to now proscribe the hate-filled group. The question is: Why did it take so long? Shock moment pro-Palestine protesters break into RAF Brize Norton & spray 2 military planes with paint before escaping Dead loss ASSISTED dying is a deeply emotive and complex issue. In brutal terms, it amounts to state-sanctioned killing. On that basis, it's deeply worrying that Kim Leadbeater's ill-considered private members' bill is now set to become law. It simply does not have enough safeguards, particularly for the vulnerable, poor and disabled. During yesterday's debate, the idea it might allow families to coerce elderly relatives into early deaths was brushed aside as though such a thing could never happen. Fears from hospice carers were also dismissed. The Government has been absent throughout the legislative process and nearly 150 MPs ducked the decision and abstained. Crime associated with illegal migration is of significant public interest and concern in the wake of the Casey report into grooming gangs.

Sky News

7 hours ago

• Sky News

Trump's update on Iran timeline is significant - but it still keeps everyone guessing

This is the most significant statement from the US president in days, though it still keeps everyone guessing. In a message conveyed through his press secretary, he is giving diplomacy up to two weeks to work. "Based on the fact that there's a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future, I will make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks," Karoline Leavitt quoted him as saying. It is not clear what "whether or not to go" entails. 0:40 We know that he has been given a spectrum of different military options by his generals and we know that the Israelis are pressuring him to use American B2 bombers with their bunker-busting bombs to destroy Iran's nuclear facility at Fodow. The Israelis are encouraging no delay. But against that, he is weighing up many risks, both military and political. Militarily, it is not clear how successful a bunker-busting strike on Fordow would be. Experts have suggested it would require several of the massive bombs, which have never been used in combat before, to be dropped on the site. It is not as simple as one clean strike and job done. Politically, the president is under significant pressure domestically not to get involved in Iran. 2:40 Within his own MAGA coalition - influencers, politicians and media personalities are lining up in criticism of involvement in the conflict. One of those leading the criticism, his former chief strategist Steve Bannon, who maintains huge influence, was seen entering the White House on Thursday. His press secretary reiterated to us that the president always wants to give diplomacy a chance and she confirmed that his Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff has spoken to the Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi. European leaders, including the UK foreign secretary David Lammy, who is in Washington, are meeting Mr Araghchi in Geneva on Friday. The two-week window - assuming it lasts that long - also gives space to better prepare for any strike and mitigate against some of the other risks of US involvement. There are 40,000 troops in bases across the Middle East. It takes time to increase security at these bases or to move non-essential personnel out. It also takes time to move strategic military assets into the region. The USS Nimitz aircraft carrier and its support vessels were redeployed from the Indo-Pacific on Monday. Their last known position was the Strait of Malacca two days ago. The Nimitz Carrier Group will overlap with the USS Carl Vinson group which was deployed to the Middle East in March. The potential two-week window also allows for more time for a 'day after' plan, given that the Israeli strategy appears to be regime change from within. Since the Israeli action in Iran began last week, the worst-case scenario of mass casualties in Israel from Iranian attacks has not materialised. The president is said to be surprised and encouraged by this. "Israel has exceeded a lot of people's expectations in their abilities," press secretary Karoline Leavitt said. The Israeli success, the absence of a mass casualty event in Israel, and the lack of any sustained counterattack by Iranian proxies in the region remove reservations that previous presidents have had about taking on Iran. That said, sources have told Sky News that the president is determined that the diplomatic solution should be given a chance despite current pessimism over the chances of success.

The Independent

7 hours ago

• The Independent

How the AP decided to refer to the conflict between Israel and Iran as a war

The Associated Press is calling the current conflict between Israel and Iran a war, given the scope, intensity and duration of military activities on both sides. Other news organizations also have decided to refer to the conflict as a war, while some are still sticking with words such as 'conflict' or 'fighting.' Why does it matter? When a conflict in the world spills into military action, it's important to use the correct terms to describe it. Sometimes a one-sided attack occurs without further action, or a conflict bubbles up and then ends quickly Using 'war' widely to describe these kinds of situations can diminish the word's importance. Then, when actual war breaks out, people might not understand its significance. What does the AP consider? The Merriam-Webster definition of war is quite broad: 'A state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations," or "a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism.' The fight between Israel and Iran meets those criteria, though neither has officially declared war. Since Israel launched an air campaign targeting Iran's military and nuclear program, there has been a significant escalation in the conflict. Iran has launched hundreds of missiles and drones into Israel. Israel has assassinated high-level Iranian officials; targeted the country's infrastructure; called for hundreds of thousands of residents to evacuate Iran's capital, Tehran; and said it will continue its offensive. What are previous examples of conflicts where the AP issued guidance to use the word 'war'? The AP provided guidance on the Russia-Ukraine war and the Israel- Hamas war in the days and weeks after fighting began. In both cases, editors considered the number of casualties, the intensity of fighting, the involvement of each party, and what each country was calling the conflict. In both cases, the AP started using the word 'war' to describe the conflicts. Why is it 'war' and not 'War'? AP capitalizes the word 'war' only as part of a formal name, which as of now does not exist. Could the guidance change? Decisions on how AP uses the term 'war' happen in real time. AP's news leaders and standards editors will continue to monitor developments to see whether changes are necessary. At this point, the level of fighting constitutes the countries being at war, no matter what happens next. If fighting were to end soon, AP would continue saying the countries had been at war. News leaders would consider whether the level of fighting at that time amounted to being at war. If other countries intervene in the war, AP would describe the intervention as military action in support of Israel or military support of Iran. AP would also consider whether the action constitutes those countries also being at war.