A brief border clash in late July kicked off an intense period of tension between Cambodia and Thailand. The tensions stemmed from overlapping historical territory claims, but those disputes arguably flared to violent life due to the unique political moment in Cambodia and Thailand. Napon Jatusripitak – a political scientist specializing in politics in Thailand and Southeast Asia – told The Diplomat, “these flashpoints alone cannot account for the speed or scale of the escalation, or the intensity of the nationalist fervor it has unleashed.”
In the following interview Jatusripitak charts out the roots of the present tension, paying special attention to the political dynamics on both sides of the border that have turned a long-simmering issue into a flashpoint. He dives more deeply into the still-unfolding political consequences in Thailand, where the clashes are feeding into entrenched differences between the military establishment and the Shinawatra political dynasty.
Although a ceasefire was agreed to on July 28, Jatusripitak calls it “fragile.” As long as the political factors that drove the original clashes remain in play, a return to conflict cannot be ruled out. “Such a domestic climate is hardly conducive – in fact, it is prohibitive – for either side to engage in building the kind of mutual trust and cooperative mechanisms necessary for lasting peace,” he notes.
Take us back a few months. How and why did a minor border clash with Cambodia escalate to the point where we are today?
There are many ways one could answer this question, but none on their own feel fully convincing. The best approach, I think, is to identify a set of factors that appear to have contributed to the escalation and to tease out how they combine.
Much of the media attention has understandably centered on the recent incidents that served as immediate triggers for the conflict. These include Cambodian soldiers singing their national anthem at the Prasat Ta Muen Thom temple in February, an exchange of gunfire in May that killed a Cambodian soldier, injuries sustained by Thai soldiers in July from landmines alleged to have been newly planted by Cambodian forces, and, shortly thereafter, the use of BM-21 rocket artillery that struck a civilian area in Thailand.
However, these flashpoints alone cannot account for the speed or scale of the escalation, or the intensity of the nationalist fervor it has unleashed. After all, similar border skirmishes have taken place before, particularly during the 2008–2011 Preah Vihear dispute, without spiraling into a conflict of this magnitude or carrying such far-reaching consequences for domestic politics.
More academic explanations have turned to history: long-simmering tensions over territorial sovereignty along the undemarcated frontier, rooted in colonial-era treaties and conflicting maps that continue to fuel competing claims and nationalist contestation over sites of cultural significance.
Yet these two lines of explanation – trigger points and long-standing historical grievances – still leave something out. What is missing are the intermediate political dynamics that turned this episode into a full-blown crisis that is much larger and more consequential than it should have been.